I have been watching the news daily ever since
gunmen have attacked the offices of French
magazine "Charlie Hebdo," in Paris, killing 12
people including the Editor.

Most of us know the details surrounding this action so I
shan't repeat them here. However, what I would
like to discuss is - the concept of "Freedom
of Speech." BTW - I am for "Freedom of Speech,"
and for not being silenced by the actions of
extremists. From news reports coming out of Paris,
there are however some people who feel that the editor
of the satirical magazine should not have poured
oil onto the fire by deliberately knowing that his
actions would provoke an extremist reaction. I would
like to see what others here think - did the Editor
go too far. I don't think so, but then that's only
my opinion. What's yours?

Foxy,

I posted this on an articles thread on the same subject.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

Slavoj Žižek on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Are the worst really full of passionate intensity?

Bringing up the case of Salman Rushdie...

" Now, when we are all in a state of shock after the killing spree in the Charlie Hebdo offices, it is the right moment to gather the courage to think. We should, of course, unambiguously condemn the killings as an attack on the very substance our freedoms, and condemn them without any hidden caveats (in the style of "Charlie Hebdo was nonetheless provoking and humiliating the Muslims too much"). But such pathos of universal solidarity is not enough – we should think further.

Such thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with the cheap relativisation of the crime (the mantra of "who are we in the West, perpetrators of terrible massacres in the Third World, to condemn such acts"). It has even less to do with the pathological fear of many Western liberal Leftists to be guilty of Islamophobia. For these false Leftists, any critique of Islam is denounced as an expression of Western Islamophobia; Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwa condemning him to death, etc. The result of such stance is what one can expect in such cases: the more the Western liberal Leftists probe into their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam. This constellation perfectly reproduces the paradox of the superego: the more you obey what the Other demands of you, the guiltier you are. It is as if the more you tolerate Islam, the stronger its pressure on you will be . . ."

Much more in the article.

This magazine satirised other religions, politicians and cultural icons also - we wouldn't dream any of them would be provoked into slaughtering the magazine's employees because of that.

Actor Stephen Fry says the Charlie Hebdo killings "desecrated" our ideas of "free thought and freedom of expression on which our culture is entirely founded."

He is right.

"Je suis Charlie"

Dear Poirot,

Thank You for the link.

Middle East Commentator Juan Cole pointed
out that "... this horrific murder was not a
protest against the defamation of a religious icon.
It was an attempt to
provoke European society into action against French
Muslims," in hopes of driving the recruitment efforts
of militant groups like al-Qaida and the Islamic State.

We shall have to wait and see how the French will react
to all of this. Will this trauma have the desired effect
on the French. Will there be more anti-Islamic
hostility from the white French majority, will there be
more votes for the Right-Wing National Front and will
there also be more bitterness and self-isolation among
the Muslim community. Will Editors have second and third
thoughts about every cartoon and every provocative
piece?

I certainly hope not.

However, to broaden the discussion -

Here's a link taken from CNN in the US -

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/10/opinions/kohn-free-speech-responsibility/

What do you think?

I personally feel that if we're not going to defend even the
most obnoxious varieties of free speech from those who
would silence it in the most literal sense then we don't
deserve free speech at all.

Dear otb,

Thanks for that.

I also agree with Stephen Fry.

The British actor also tweeted the following
in response:

"Publish a Charlie Hebdo cartoon: show them
the pen will still flourish when their guns
have rusted."

Foxy It looks like a false flag event in which Charlie Hebdo were just merely pawns.

It seems to me that free speach something everyone agrees with until they are personally offended. Should we defend Bill Cosby's right to make jokes about rape? Surely its no more vile than Delaneys comments on Bindy Irwin. Every one favours free speach until their own buttons are pressed.

runner,

We're saying that murdering people for exercising their right to free speech - in a country that upholds that right - is heinous.

We're saying that intimidating and terrorising people into inhibiting their freedom of speech is monstrous.

So much for the uncontested freedom of speech, I wish you all were as keen about other freedoms!

---

Dear Poirot,

<<We're saying that murdering people for exercising their right to free speech - in a country that upholds that right - is heinous.>>

So in your view, free speech is not a natural freedom but a right bestowed by particular countries? if one is murdered in a different country which doesn't uphold free speech than it's OK, not heinous?

<<We're saying that intimidating and terrorising people into inhibiting their freedom of speech is monstrous.>>

Are you claiming that my parents were monstrous for admonishing me when as a child I pointed and called at negroes and the very fat man who lived in the corner of my street?

Would you justify the boys in http://germanstories.vcu.edu/struwwel/bubeng.html ?

@ all the lefties who are suddenly becoming champions of free speech

<<We're saying that intimidating and terrorising people into inhibiting their freedom of speech is monstrous.>>

Hahaha and this is from the side of politics who are always spruiking anti-viliification laws --what a joke.

Yuyutsu,

"So in your view, free speech is not a natural freedom but a right bestowed by particular countries? if one is murdered in a different country which doesn't uphold free speech than it's OK, not heinous?"

Oh nice one...."how to take someone's post and misrepresent their intended meaning - 101"

I added that bit because we are specifically referring to France and Charlie Hebdo in this thread.

"Are you claiming that my parents were monstrous for admonishing me when as a child I pointed and called at negroes and the very fat man who lived in the corner of my street?"

Only if they chased you around the house with an AK47.

A few years ago there was outrage against a Imam suggesting that young women wearing immodest clothing (uncovered meat) were partially responsible for getting raped.

I find any suggestion that the journalists of CH "brought this on themselves" by publishing cartoons that "offended" certain ethnic communities, in the same vein and equally repugnant. This also applies to Poirot's ludicrous suggestion that this murder was somewhat justified due to actions by the West generations ago.

Free speech is in human terms a relatively new concept that has evolved hand in hand with, and is a cornerstone of democracy. Unfortunately, in an attempt to re engineer society, certain elements have been trying to trim back free speech by claiming that people have the right not to be offended.

Penalising people for offending others (even if whats said is factually correct) is one of the most effective attacks on free speech. Notably the journalists of Charlie hebdo would have been prosecuted in Australia under the infamous section 18c.

SM,

"...This also applies to Poirot's ludicrous suggestion that this murder was somewhat justified due to actions by the West generations ago."

Um...where...when...did I write that?

I've been one of the more strident on this forum in defending the cartoonists and their right to free speech.

Poirot,

My humble apologies, I misread your post.

poirot: Only if they chased you around the house with an AK47.

Then you'd be in Palestine, wouldn't you. ;-)

Arjay: Foxy It looks like a false flag event in which Charlie Hebdo were just merely pawns.

I guess the IS Terrorists were just misunderstood. Ay?

poirot: I've been one of the more strident on this forum in defending the cartoonists and their right to free speech.

Yes..., normally you are defending the Terrorists right to kill non-believers. Strange that.

Apology accepted, SM...I think we're on the same page with this one : )

_______

Jayb,

"Yes..., normally you are defending the Terrorists right to kill non-believers. Strange that."

I really shouldn't even bother replying to that one - but I will, if only to highlight your disingenuous style of smear.

poirot: but I will, if only to highlight your disingenuous style of smear.

My God poirot, of all the discussions we have had on the Forum & OLO it is you & a few follower on here, who have staunchly defended the rights of Islamists to do what ever killing of non-believers they like without recriminations.

Jayb,

Here we go again...

"My God poirot, of all the discussions we have had on the Forum & OLO it is you & a few follower on here, who have staunchly defended the rights of Islamists to do what ever killing of non-believers they like without recriminations."

Okay....provide any link where I have done so?

I mean go right ahead and have a good old trawl.

You won't be able to,of course, because I have "never" stated such a thing.

Posters like you are disturbing - for the simple reason that you often fling any and every accusation as if it is the truth - because it matches the notional template you've made of your opponent.

I've challenge you before to provide evidence of your smears...and not once have you responded by stumping up with evidence.

The worst sort of debater is one who daubs his opponents with untruths and innuendo.

poirot: I mean go right ahead and have a good old trawl.

Too many to mention. So much to say, every time there has been any discussion on Islam verses the West.

The worst sort of debater is one who daubs his opponents with untruths and innuendo.

Even worst, one who feigns innocence in the face of overwhelming truth.

Dear Jayb,

Neither Poirot, myself, or anyone else, that I
know of on this forum have ever
defended the rights of any extremists to kill.
What we have objected to in the past is the
irrational, inflexible attitude toward an entire
category of people - namely Muslims. The statements
that were always rooted in generalisations and
ignored the differences among individuals.

Still, I suppose that someone who is prejudiced
against certain people will tend to have a negative
attitude towards any individual belonging to that group
in the belief that they all share the same supposed
traits - be they Muslims, or anyone else.

Jayb,

"Too many to mention. So much to say, every time there has been any discussion on Islam verses the West."

Lol!...for a guy who get's his jollies from falsely smearing fellow posters, you now run off with your tail between your legs, citing "Oh there are too many instances".

Well, if the instances are so overwhelming, it shouldn't take you too long to dig one up!

But, of course, that's not the issue at all.

The issue is that you're inventing things and now slinking off when challenged to produce the evidence.

Typical!

What an interesting rhetorical device to use on a thread about freedom of speech, jayb...

"...it is you [Poirot] who have staunchly defended the rights of Islamists to do what ever killing of non-believers they like without recriminations."

So are you using a lie as an example of free speech or of unfettered freedom of expression? Unfettered by there being any truth to your statement, that is?

Or is it a cunning device to have us try to decide whether your statement is a deliberate lie or an expression from ignorance?

"Too many to mention." in a debate usually translates as "I don't know of any." or "I cannot."

It is a weird contrivance to say: "The worst sort of debater is one who daubs his opponents with untruths and innuendo.
Even worst, one who feigns innocence in the face of overwhelming truth."

Weird, because according to your definition you are the worst sort of debator.

Foxy: I suppose that someone who is prejudiced against certain people will tend to have a negative attitude towards any individual belonging to that group in the belief that they all share the same supposed traits - be they Muslims, or anyone else.

You misunderstand. I am not prejudiced against any "people" at all. I do have strong reservations against any Religion that induces it followers to lie to & kill any "person" who is not of their Religion. Even the so called peaceful ones are only peaceful while they are an individual, as Group the cease to be peaceful.

Eg; Are Quran Believers allowed to eliminate (kill) non-believers? Is that what they teach or not?

C2-V178 &
C2-V191 &
C4-V15 &
C4-V88-91 &
C5-V32-33 &
C8-V12,39;
C9-V5.
C47-V4;

/// What Quran says about non-believers;
C3-V110 &
C3-V118 &
C8-V22 &
C8-V55.

// Why radical terrorists think they’re getting a reward for doing evil;
C4-V95 &
C9-V20 &
C47-V4.

Are moslems allowed to lie to non-believers? Yes.

Al-Taqiyya.
C2:225
C3:28
C3:54
C9:3
C10:21
C16:106
C40:28
C66:2

Are the usual supporters of Islam on the Forum & OLO still denying this, again.

@WMTrevor

I’m with Jayb <<it is you [Poirot] who have staunchly defended the rights of Islamists TO DO what ever killing of non-believers>> yeap!

I think if you went back through your defendants posts over the last few years you will see very clearly that she and a few of her confederates have consistently tried to shift the blame from Islamists to someone else ---anyone else. No matter what they did it wasn't their fault. They were provoked or misled by the West. So they could (effectively) keep on doing what they were doing. And, anyway, it was far less newsworthy than Abu Ghraid being rehashed for the twentieth time

But, now, because those Islamists have widen their field of operations your client and her confederates are ooh and aah -- but still pulling their punches--when your client and you stop PULLING i will start given you guys some credence ;)

Thanks, SPQR....I'll just file your blathering under the same heading as I do Jayb's.

Jayb says:

"it is you [Poirot] who have staunchly defended the rights of Islamists TO DO what ever killing of non-believers"

You back it up with:

"I think if you went back through your defendants posts over the last few years you will see very clearly that she and a few of her confederates have consistently tried to shift the blame from Islamists to someone else ---anyone else."

Which is a vastly watered-down version of Jayb's accusation -and yet you appear to be using it to give credence to Jayb's untruth...the one that he has skipped away without providing evidence for.

Where have I ever defended atrocities committed by fundamentalists?

That's the accusation from Jayb.

I stand by my comments regarding stupid interventions in the middle-east by the West - that doesn't mean I support atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

And the reason this atrocity has gained more momentum is that it targeted the very foundations of free expression - symbolised by the pencils of the cartoonists.

Dear SPQR,

Do you have anything of substance to contribute
to the topic of this discussion. If so, please feel free
to do so. Your thoughts on the actual topic would be appreciated.

Foxy, spoken just like a mullah :)
You might have to read it a couple times before you get the full meaning ;)

Have great day

Poirot,

I am glad that we are on the same page, Do you also feel that Section 18c is a serious infringement on freedom of speech?

Dear SPQR,

Well, I guess the bottom line is -
there's not much substance to you at all.

I was seriously expecting your thoughts on the topic
of this discussion - its sad, that the only thing
you seem capable of doing is trying to insult someone.
Actually, you give me too much credit by referring to me
as a religious scholar.
I'm not. But Thank You.

Dear Jayb,

Most scholars agree on one thing - the DNA of
early Judaism,Christianity and Islam are all
filled with violence.

Perhaps you should also take a closer look
at some of the other "Holy Books," of the
various religions - and also a closer examination
of history as well - and not just focus on one
select group. You need to take into
consideration the standards of the time in which
the "Holy Books," were written, which for Islam was 7th
century AD.

The problem it seems to me to be not Muslims - but
fundamentalism. And fundamentalism exists in all religions.

I agree with Middle East Commentator
Juan Cole who said that this latest horrific violence in Paris
"was not a pious protest against the defamation of a
religious icon. It was an attempt to provoke European
society into action against French Muslims in hopes of driving
recruitment efforts of militant groups like al-Qaida and the
Islamic State."

Both are recognised as terrorist organisations
world-wide.

At the risk of receiving a good kicking, I believe 'Charlie Hebdo' were ill-advised, in fact manifestly wrong, to publish this satirical material in their magazine, in this instance. Given the existing climate of violence, that is currently pervading, in and about France at this time ?

The magazine which I understand is located in Paris, in a country of nearly 3.5 million Muslims living there, and tensions already high, with various threat assessments in existence, and to deliberately go ahead, and continue to ridicule and insult Islam, to a group of people with a clear propensity and history of violence, and radical extremism.

I believe it was both foolhardy even reckless in the extreme, to go ahead and publish material, essentially to prove you're sufficiently resolute in your right, to engage in 'free speech' as it were.

It wouldn't matter a fig, in most normal western democracies where cartoonist's regularly lampoon and send up, all manner of religions, important people, including politicians and other high profile individuals, that's par for the course.

But France, with the highest Muslim population of any country in Western Europe, well it's just plain foolhardy even reckless. Those who were innocent victims, not in anyway connected to Charlie Hebdo, well I think the Executives of that magazine should think very carefully in future before they undertake any similar actions of this type.

After all it's just simple 'Risk Management' nothing else ? Notwithstanding you may lawfully do something, you just don't push that right, until it's safe to do so. It's not as though you're 'backing down', you're merely exercising your strategic options here, nothing else !

foxy"

"The problem it seems to me to be not Muslims - but
fundamentalism. And fundamentalism exists in all religions."

Sums it up perfectly; thank you

o sung wu
France has a long and robust tradition of gross, coarse and offensive satire stretching back to Rabelais. Combine this with the strong anti-clerical sentiments of the political left, and a firm commitment to Liberté, and the kind of prudence you are advocating would be a denial of several fundamental principles. It is clear that the cartoonists knew the risks and refused to be intimidated. I applaud them.

Australia prides itself on being anti-establishment and irreverent, but I don’t think it is. It has no equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, or the USA’s Mad magazine or the Onion, or even the UK’s Private Eye or Viz. Remember how the Chaser team were excoriated for mocking the sanctimonious sentimentality of “make a wish”?

Our commitment to free speech is often shallow and contingent - witness the Liberals' back down on 18C. It appears the French are made of sterner stuff.

Yes, SM, if I apply the same criteria, it's clear that 18c curtails free speech.

I believe 18c pertains to "race" only, but that some jurisdictions in Australia also offer redress on other accounts including religion.

Rhian,

Thanks for some insightful posts on this issue, especially the one above.

OSW: After all it's just simple 'Risk Management' nothing else ? Notwithstanding you may lawfully do something, you just don't push that right, until it's safe to do so.

I disagree, If we are not careful we will get 'Risked Managed' back to the Dark Ages along with Islam.

It's not as though you're 'backing down', you're merely exercising your strategic options here, nothing else !

Not backing down? If backing down every time Islamists make a demand, or want us to stop doing something they disagree with,which is very much everything Western. We'll be a moslem Country before you can blink, which is what they want. The Great Southern Caliphate.

As for Europe & the World. It's time to send all moslems back to the Middle East where they belong with their Archaic Religion.

This warning for Europe.

http://www.cbn.com/tv/embedplayer.aspx?bcid=1509282970001

Your resident RAInfidel.

Dear Rhian,

Thank You for your kind words and your insight.

I agree if we're not going to defend the most
obnoxious varieties of free speech from those who
would silence it in the most literal sense - then
we don't deserve to have free speech at all.

Dear Jayb,

You should substitute the word "Islamists" with
either "fundamentalists" or "Extremists," becaue
they are the ones causing the problems worldwide.
Not everyone who follows the religion of Islam -
is a fundamentalist or an extremist and to tar
them all with the one brush is simply wrong.

Foxy: You should substitute the word "Islamists" with either "fundamentalists" or "Extremists," because they are the ones causing the problems worldwide.

I find it amazing, given the evidence of the Koran itself that people go out of their way to defend this evil Religion.

Not everyone who follows the religion of Islam - is a fundamentalist or an extremist and to tar them all with the one brush is simply wrong.

No it isn't.
Individually a moslem is allowed to lie to a non-moslem to gain an advantage over them in the long run.
Their Religion insists that they be ready to kill non-moslems any time they can.

I take it Foxy that you won't mind having a bag shoved over you head because if you don't you will offend a moslem & they "might" kill you if you don't. In the name of 'Risk Management.'

Frankly, I don't wish to live like that. Obviously you won't mind.

I find it amazing the amount of people who insist that we should 'back down' to these people. They are counting on "your Politically Correctness" to get their own way & they are laughing at you all the way to the "mosk."

Dear Jayb,

You are beginning to sound like a nutter.
And I get the distinct impression that
you're simply stirring and should not be
taken seriously. How many Muslims do
you actually know - and how do you know
how they practice their religion - and what
bits do they follow. Kindly don't make
assumptions about other people (me included)
that you don't really know - and don't be
guided by what is distorted and newsworthy in
the media. When you talk about the followers
of Islam - you have to be more specific.
Are you referring to the millions in Indonesia,
or India, or China, or Russia, or even the
black African countries - each country is
culturally and linguistically different and so
is the way they practice their religion. They are
not all one group doing exactly the same thing.
Logic should dictate to you. Do all Christians
follow their religion in exactly the same way,
do all Jews?

How many Christians do you think could list the
ten commandments, let alone name the four gospels that
contain Jesus's message, and I bet that most would have
no idea that it was Jesus who delivered the central
Christian statement, the Sermon on the Mount.

Give it a rest old chap - and stop trying to spread
your nonsense on this forum. Fundamentalists exist in all
religions. Try picking on someone else for a change.
Surprise us all.

Foxy: And I get the distinct impression that you're simply stirring and should not be taken seriously

So I shouldn't stir the Islamists. Are you saying that I'm not allowed to exercise 'Free Speech.'

It wasn't too long ago, on here, that the problem was not caused by ordinary peaceful moslems it was the Islamists that were the problem. (think around the time of Iftikha) Now they're not the problem, it's the Fundamentalists. Next, of course, it'll be the Terrorists not the Fundamentalists. & so on & so on. Any excuse at all to defend this vile Religion.

Actually I knew quite a lot moslem men. None of them practice their Religion them selves in normal everyday life, but all of them insist their wives did, in a very strict manner. Strange that. In fact one I ran into in a Supermarket, shopping with his wife, berated her for answering me when I addressed her. It was OK for me to talk to him but not to his wife or for her to answer, "hello". They were just your average everyday moslem.

Incorrectly posted on different thread.

o sung wu wrote;

“'Charlie Hebdo' were ill-advised, in fact manifestly wrong, to publish this satirical material in their magazine.”

I agree for a different reason.

What I will not brook is racial vilification and incitement. Unchecked it has lead to some of the greatest loss of life in the modern era.

CH skirted the boundaries and on more than one occasion crossed it. But what is telling is their apparent hypocrisy. After reproducing the Mohammed Cartoons the publication was taken to court in France by an Islamic body claiming the cartoons incited racial hatred. Their case was strengthened soon after 80 Muslim graves were daubed with Swastikas. The court denied the claim on the grounds of free speech.

However when one of their columnists wrote the relatively innocuous remark about the president's son the editor sacked him.

“A Left-wing cartoonist is to go on trial on Tuesday on charges of anti-Semitism for suggesting Jean Sarkozy, the son of the French president, was converting to Judaism for financial reasons.

Maurice Sinet, 80, who works under the pen name Sine, faces charges of "inciting racial hatred" for a column he wrote last July in the satirical weekly Charlie Hebdo. The piece sparked a summer slanging match among the Parisian intelligentsia and ended in his dismissal from the magazine.
"L'affaire Sine" followed the engagement of Mr Sarkozy, 22, to Jessica Sebaoun-Darty, the Jewish heiress of an electronic goods chain. Commenting on an unfounded rumour that the president's son planned to convert to Judaism, Sine quipped: "He'll go a long way in life, that little lad."

A high-profile political commentator slammed the column as linking prejudice about Jews and social success. Charlie Hebdo's editor, Philippe Val, asked Sinet to apologise but he refused, exclaiming: "I'd rather cut my balls off."

Mr Val's decision to fire Sine was backed by a group of eminent intellectuals, including the philosopher Bernard-Henry Lévy, but parts of the libertarian Left defended him, citing the right to free speech.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

I imagine many anti-Islam comments here wouldn't pass the muster if couched around Judaism.

Good evening RHIAN...

You obviously have a better knowledge of France and their lifestyles, so I'll not try to contradict anything you've said herein.

Look I'm all for freedom of speech, the print and electronic media etc. I'm in know way trying to refute anything along those lines OK. But with these lunatics, they're not in anyway predictable, and they obviously have no morality, so why on earth do we paint a target on are collective arses for goodness sake ! It's stupid, not at all courageous !

We're NOT backing down OK. We're using our brains hopefully, what's the point of spilling the innocent blood of a dozen lives, and then scream from the rooftops "...OK you bastards you can't beat us, we'll never yield our rights to freedom of speech..." and go off and bury a dozen cadavers ! It's blatant craziness in my opinion !

Hi there JAYB...

Surely you can understand my reasoning here ? It would make as much sense as wandering around outside the wire, for a leisurely Saturday afternoon stroll, up the Long Hai's 'unarmed' ? It's not that we're relinquishing our right to freedom of speech, of the media and electronic media, it's simply common sense is all !

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You ask :

« Freedom of Speech - Is it too big a price to pay? »
.

That is a difficult question to answer. I guess it depends on what is at stake. What the price is, who has to pay and when.

As the context is the carnage perpetrated by the jihadists during their recent rampage in Paris against Charlie Hebdo, a Jewish grocery store and the police, unfortunately, not all those who had to “pay the price” received any “freedom of speech” in return. It might be said they got short-changed.

That includes a young police woman who was attending to a car accident in the street and was shot in the back simply because she was wearing a police uniform. It includes an office cleaner on his first day at work in the building where Charlie Hebdo was located. It also includes the four customers in the grocery store who were presumed to be Jewish. None of those poor people received any “freedom of speech” in exchange for their lives.

A policeman who had been wounded in the street was callously finished-off with a bullet in the head as he lay on the ground looking up at the terrorists as they left the building. They did not ask him if he wanted to express an opinion on anything before casually pulling the trigger.

The same fate befell the policeman who had been assigned to “Charb”, the editor of the magazine, as his personal bodyguard, and also Bernard Maris, a reputed economist (a board member of the Bank of France) who was both a shareholder of Charlie Hebdo and a regular columnist. Ditto Elsa Cayat, a psychoanalyst and columnist, the only female member of the team. Nobody asked them if they had anything to say.

Then there was Mustapha Ourrad, the copy editor and Michel Renaud, who happened to be visiting the magazine at the time. Nobody asked them their opinion.

Finally, there were the five cartoonists, including “Charb”. They knew the price for them and their families and paid up.

.

@Steelie

Steelie playing his usual marketing role for Islam ...mischievously deals the anti-Jew card: <<I imagine many anti-Islam comments here wouldn't pass the muster if couched around Judaism>>

Well Steelie, you wouldn't need any imagination to know that any of the about <<anti-Islam comments>> would NOT pass muster in any polity where Islam is the dominant force --which is much of the Middle East --want to squawk about that?

The Liberal Parties extreme rights mouth peace Cory Bernardi has tried to politicise the attack in Paris by once more calling for an easing of Australia's race hate laws. This is exactly what the perpetrators and the supporters of these vile acts want. This is not the time to try and alienate moderate Muslims in our society who also condemn this kind of outrage. Such action would be counter productive in the extreme.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/charlie-hebdo-attack-prompts-renewed-calls-for-racehate-law-changes-in-australia-20150112-12m7d6.html

Some moderates in Australia are also questioning what they see as disproportionate outrage over this attack.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/charlie-hebdo-attack-panislamic-group-hizb-uttahrir-australia-says-selective-moral-outrage-over-massacre-is-disproportionate-20150112-12mho6.html

Paul,

It's not just Cory Bernadi calling for a revision of the race hate laws, but pretty much everyone concerned about press freedom.

The irony is that we have people from all persuasions supposedly standing in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and its right of free expression, forgetting that the magazine would be banned in Australia because it offended people.

Shadow, I understand the point you are making. How do you strike a balance, whereby the law would not protect those that want to insight hatred in the community, and genuine free speech.

There is a world of difference between Race & Religion. 18c focuses on Race not Religion. The Holocaust was 70 years ago & I know we must never forget the 6 million Jews that were murdered. However no mention is ever made of the 13 million Christians that suffered the same fate at the same time nor of the millions Russians, mostly Christian, that also died. Why is that? Why do we only concentrate on the Jewry that died?

Judaism is a Religion, not a Race. Why is it always made out to be a Race issue?

I think that, in Australia, fun should be able to be poked at anyone regardless of Race or Religion, Political persuasion, Sex or anything else that can be thought of. Cartoons & Jokes make you think, good or bad, about the real situation. Not a politically Cleansed one. Politically Correctness makes you blind in one eye & not being able to see out of the other with a spray of sweet fragrance under the nose to hide the reality no one wants to mention. Poking "good natured" fun at one another has always been an Australian Tradition & sometimes a nice way of helping people who need a little push in the right direction or to look at things differently.

I hope this is taken an a positive light, not as an intentional nasty poke at the marginalized. Sometimes I'm not good at getting my intended message across.

Paul,

I'm getting some mixed messages from various commentators.

"The Liberal Parties extreme rights mouth peace Cory Bernardi has tried to politicise the attack in Paris by once more calling for an easing of Australia's race hate laws. This is exactly what the perpetrators and the supporters of these vile acts want...."

I was under the impression that the vile perpetrators wanted a tightening of such laws [in France, at least].

Sorry, I can't buy the proposition that we fall to our knees when some extremists decide to commit atrocities in the so-called "defence of their religion".

Satire, no matter how vicious, is part of the way humans deal with stuff.

For instance, in one episode of Father Ted, a Bishop ends up with Holy Stone of Clonrichert - (being upgraded to a "class two relic" by the Vatican) inserted in his nether regions...another Bishop is inadvertenly convinced by Dougal that Christianity is a load of tosh, and promptly heads off to India in a Kombi, puffing on a joint - and a third Bishop is killed by a heart attack when a drain spurts out water after someone flushes the loo....all is irreverence, produced in a country that takes its Catholism very seriously. Would we for a minute put a caveat on a massacre of the production team of Father Ted on the grounds that it insulted Catholism?

___________

SM,

"It's not just Cory Bernadi calling for a revision of the race hate laws, but pretty much everyone concerned about press freedom."

On that subject, is Cory also calling for a revision of Brandis's new security laws - that hold the threat of jailing journalists for ten years if they breach it?

o sung wu

I agree that provocation made the cartoonists a target. The same is true of everyone who exercises free speech in the face of violent opposition. It may be that a cartoon seems a rather trivial compared to a political analysis or, say, the Satanic Verses. But satire can be deadly serious.

This attack was unusual in that most of the victims – the cartoonists - had personally done something to provoke it. Most victims of terrorist attacks are random, or racial targets, like Jewish supermarket victims. Trying to avoid being a target doesn’t prevent you from being one.

Even if you don’t accept the argument that free speech is worth defending in in principle, I wonder how your pragmatic approach would play out in practice. If CH had not published their offensive cartoons, would the Kouachi brothers have stayed peacefully at home, or found some other "offenders" to target? We can never know, but I suspect the latter.

Dear Rhian,

The following link may be of interest to you and others
in this discussion. It's from the New York Post.

"French Prime Minister declares war on Islam..."

The French PM, Manuel Valls stated -

"We are at war - not a war against religion - not a war
against a civilization - but to defend our values,
which are universal."

"It is a war against terrorism, and radical Islamism -
against everything that would break our solidarity, our
liberty, our fraternity."

"The French people need to stand up for freedom of speech
and faith - which in France means keeping religion
separate from government."

"We need standards, values and authority. There must be
a firm message about the values of the Republic and
secularism."

And there's more at the following:

http://nypost.com/2015/01/10/french-prime-minister-declares-war-on-radical-islam/

G'day there RHIAN...

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm a great believer of defending our rights of 'Freedom of speech' that includes s.18c of that 'pointless' Statute !

It's just I believe when one is dealing with these halfwits you pick your fights, and when ready, demolish them completely ! It's like relentlessly prodding a venomous snake, do it long enough it'll bite. If you wish to destroy the snake, come upon it quickly, and kill it, 'before' it's ready to coil and strike ?

I'm sorry I can't seem to explain myself very effectively on this issue ? I suppose it's not unlike the situation that Salman RUSHDIE found himself in, with the publication of his book, 'Satanic Verses'? He could've continued writing in a similar vain, after all he had 'close protection', compliments of the British Government, but he chose to write other material until the threat assessment had diluted somewhat.

In other words he chose not to put his own life in any additional jeopardy, by publishing any other similar material that might provoke these murdering fools any further. As well as the lives of those, of his close protection squad. Unlike the editors of Charlie HEBDO, who apparently had received many such threats over time ? I call it irresponsible, not bravery.

I agree with Pickering on this issue.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/25980837/pickering-wont-tone-down-cartoons/

Paul,

I am glad that you see the need for balance and free speech.

With respect to the racial hatred laws and clause 18c I would like to see the references being objective and measurable. Thus the words that are subjective (ie. a person is offended or insulted if he says so) offend and insult should be removed, and the word vilify (which is objectively defined) left in.

Forcing the press to self censor just in case someone somewhere could take offence is wildly overly restrictive.

Hi, o sung wu

Rushdie was indeed cowed for a while by the Fatwah. He even published an article in 1990 titled “why I have embraced Islam”, and sough to limit publication of new editions of Satanic Verses. He later repudiated his attempts at conciliation, removed the article from later publications, and called for Satanic Verses to be freely available. He and became an increasingly vocal advocate for free speech and opposing Islamic fundamentalism.

I think if anything, Rushdie demonstrates than appeasement of murderous fundamentalism doesn’t work. The Fatwa has still not been cancelled.

Regarding my earlier comments on the tradition of coarse satire in France, this may be of interest:

http://qz.com/322620/the-quintessentially-french-art-of-offensive-cartoons/

SM: (ie. a person is offended or insulted if he says so)

So... If an Aboriginal calls me, White Scum, & I'm insulted. I could have that aboriginal charged under the Act. Ha! I'd like to see that. If some feminist declares that I'm a rapist waiting to happen. That Feminist could be Charged under the Act. Ha! I'd like to see that. If a Jew/Christian/moslem insults me because I'm an Atheist... Er.. No, because that's Religious, isn't it.

I am offended by lots of things Greenies, the Politically Correct, Bible Bashers & Do-Gooders say. Are you suggesting that I could charge them under the Act. If I'm a person that feels they are insulted & say so.

That might be a bit board, I think. You would have a back log of a thousand years, just from me alone. ;-)

Freedom of speech should never be used as an excuse to humiliate and vilify.
We do not sit idly by and accept the vile rubbish that spews from the leaders of IS and we should not stand idly by when our own leaders spew out racism and bigotry.
Or should freedom of speech only apply to westerners?

Hi (again) RHIAN...

I guess I'll have to concede that I'm on my own on this issue. Therefore it's best that I yield now, while my dignity is still intact. LOL :-) I do think you have a good case to argue, that by backing down to these idiot's demands, Charlie HEBDO would be viewed as capitulating to terrorist pressure, and lose a considerable amount of credibility into the bargain.

I don't know RHIAN, I've witnessed so much violence, and so much killing in my life, gee it get's at you, after awhile ? It seems none of us and I do mean 'NONE' of us, seems to realise, nobody ever win's wars, whatever side you may be on ? It's a case of lose lose in the long run ?

Thanks for your responses.

..and, of course, we should remember that the confederates of the Charlie Hebdo attackers randomly killed a policewoman and killed hostages doing their shopping.

That's the mindset - no connection between those innocent people and provocative cartoons.

Thank You for the interesting comments.

I've just come across the following link
that presents another perspective to our
discussion - I'd like to see what you all think
about the article:

http://www.theage.com.au/world/charlie-hebdo-total-freedom-of-expression-has-little-chance-of-survival-in-an-imperfect-society-20150112-12mgih.html

Interesting, Foxy.

Here is an interesting link too, which gives posters here the opportunity to be practical and specific as to what satirical cartoons they reckon should be allowed(sic) if they were in charge. Or should all remain mute?

http://www.theage.com.au/world/acehs-sharia-law-raped-and-beaten-then-formally-whipped-20150109-12kucb.html

Hi Foxy

Interesting article. I think it confuses two different things, though – what one ought not to do, and what ought to be forbidden by law. Many of the US examples are not of things that are against the law, but of things that are “not done”. It is fair enough for US social conventions to make veteran or 9/11 jokes taboo, and for organisations and institutions to impose standards and conventions on members. I think racist, sexist and similar comments are despicable and deserve condemnation. But I don’t think they should be banned by law. There probably have to be some limits with genuine hate speech, as there are with libel and defamation. In my view the test in all cases is whether real damage is done or threatened, not merely “offense”.

It also depends on context and medium. Many of Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons would be way out of place in mainstream media. They are deliberately transgressive and calculatingly offensive. But the people who buy the magazine know that. I don’t buy pornography, but I do not object to it being available for those who do.

I don’t agree with the article’s view that only certain groups can be mocked. While I agree in principle that it’s poor form to mock the weak and vulnerable, in practice there is no consensus on who these are. Too many groups claim the immunity of victim status. Protecting institutional religion or long-dead prophets will take us back to the days of blasphemy laws.

Incidentally, a Google search for “9/11 jokes” returns more than nine million hits, though the article says no one in the US tells them. So far as I know, no-one has ever called for these to be banned. Black humour can even be therapeutic.

Hi, o sung wu

I hope you don’t feel you need to withdraw from the thread. Your insights are valuable, especially given your experience. I don’t always agree with you, but you pull us back to reality, and that’s a good thing

Thanks for that RHIAN I do appreciate your sentiments, for sure !

Dear Rhian,

Thank You for your comments.

I think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be allowed
in this country if the Editors were of course
willing to have them published. I don't think that a
religious cartoon causing religious offence
would be covered by the Racial Discrimination Act of 18C -
as Islam is not a race and of course there is still
free speech exemplified under 18D which protects artistic
work or fair comment.

Therefore I don't think that freedom of speech is under threat
in this country as things currently stand.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

Dear otb,

We should all be grateful that we have a
secular government in this country and that
religious laws have no legal status in
Australia.

Crowie: Freedom of speech should never be used as an excuse to humiliate and vilify.

Well that eliminates every Political Cartoon & Joke ever told. Or, is that OK, except if it's pointed at YOUR particular Party.

Dear O Sung Wu,

I have read the Satanic Verses by Rushdie, I'm sorry I did - reflecting on it I want to vomit, it's gross,
pornographic attempt by someone who doesn't even have the skill and subtlety to make good pornography.

If not for the Fatwa around it, I would have never picked that book.

Rushdie is neither responsible nor brave - he's just an ugly bully ape, at most a heartless businessman capitalising on the sensation to receive royalties from people like me. My mistake.

Dear Foxy,

Before the Sydney siege we had a discussion on OLO about free speech. I said then that I didn't believe in absolute free speech and asked other posters if the thought the so-called sheik should have been free to send the letters of recrimination to the families of our deceased service personnel. More than one defended his right to do so. My position was that I wanted laws to sanction such behaviour with the full understanding that this meant curtailing his free speech.

It would be interesting to hear how many on this thread would still go in to bat for him.

My position remains the same.

Dear SteeleRedux,

One should be allowed absolute free speech to those who are willing to listen to him/her.

However, those who do not want to receive communications from someone should have the same freedom to not be exposed to their communications.

Those uninvited letters to the families of the deceased was a form of harassment, not of free speech.

Foxy, "we have a secular government in this country and that religious laws have no legal status in Australia"

You deliberately miss the point. However taking you up on what you say, ritual slaughter was being performed for years with the full knowledge of authorities. Count the 'fact-checking' ABC and so-called animal welfare activists in on that because they must have known, or if they didn't it was equally reprehensible that they were ignorant.

There still is ritual slaughter without stunning. Where stunning is performed it is not to the death as was required before religious lobbyists leaned on politicians, threatening loss of voting margins.

.

Dear Foxy,

.

You wrote to Rhian :

« I think that the Charlie Hebdo cartoons would be allowed
in this country if the Editors were of course
willing to have them published. »
.

I hope you are right, but I have my doubts which I expressed to Yuyutsu on the other thread :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6699#203082

.

You wrote to onthebeach :

« We should all be grateful that we have a
secular government in this country and that
religious laws have no legal status in
Australia. »
.

I am a regular reader of the Queensland parliamentary committee reports and see that all committee meetings commence with prayers and reference to “God”. Protocol and courtroom rules stipulate:

« Before giving evidence, the magistrate will ask each witness to swear an oath on the Bible (or other holy book) or make an affirmation (promise) to tell the truth. It is important that the witness takes an oath according to their religious beliefs. »

Also, while we may have a secular government, we do not have a secular head of State.

Queen Elizabeth II, is our head of State, with full constitutional powers, and, at the same time, Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Our current Prime Minister, Tony Abbott is a supporter of the constitutional monarchy in Australia. Prior to entering Parliament, he was Executive Director of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy from 1993 to 1994.

After graduating from university, Abbott trained as a Roman Catholic seminarian to become a Catholic priest. However, following a change of diocesan boundaries, his new Bishop wrote :

« I admire several qualities which you obviously have shown. However, there are some radical attitudes about Church and priesthood … which will have to be worked through before you would be accepted for the diocese or profit from seminary formation. »

Abbott finally gave up the idea of becoming a priest and turned to politics.

Unfortunately, there is no clear distinction in the Australian constitution between church and state - cf., the commentary on Section 16 of the constitution in Wikipedia :

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Section_116_of_the_Constitution_of_Australia&action=edit&section=7

.

SR,

While I admire your skilful attempt to muddy the waters, the right to free speech is about the right to express one's opinion in a public forum, and should not be confused with the right to harass people.

However distasteful the comments of the "Sheik", I would support his right to state them in public, and the right of the public to ignore him. However, the moment he begins deliberately to target people with offensive letters, he commits a crime that is unrelated to free speech.

Poirot, we may have a double edged sward here. Up front these radicals say they are avenging 'the prophet', and on the surface that seems to be the accepted objective. There is also an interpretation that one less visible objective of these radicals with their attacks, is to insight the general non Muslim community to turn on moderate Muslims within, therefore forcing radicalisation onto some moderates,and thus strengthening the radical cause. So far the majority of moderate Muslims through their leadership have been at pains to show their solidarity with the rest of the community over these radical attacks.

p/s I love 'Father Ted' and that was a good episode.

<<So far the majority of moderate Muslims through their leadership have been at pains to show their solidarity with the rest of the community over these radical attacks.>>

I recall reading an account of the rise of the Ayatollah in Iran . Expats living in Iran found that their long-time moderate Muslim friends and associates suddenly became raging fundamentalists overnight --denouncing all foreigners and aspect of liberalism. Every one who is not a watermelon needs to give it some thought.

Radicals? More like fundamentalists and the 'moderates' would be more likely to regard them as such - as the purists, the true believers, Jihardists.

otb,

Australian standards require livestock to be
rendered unconscious and insensible to pain
before slaughter. Limited exceptions for
cattle - broadly accepted by Muslim and Jewish
groups permit stunning with a captive-bolt pistol
immediately after the throat is cut.

The Primary Industries Council of State and Federal
Agriculture Ministers have started reviewing ritual
standards back in 2007. The Australian Meat Industry
says its awaiting its findings. This has been a
controversial issue for some time - and we'll have
to see where it ends up - especially when big profits
are tied in with the equation for the meat industry.
The laws also in this area are not crystal clear -
and that complicates things becaue all Australians
are free to follow any religion they choose, so long
as its practices do not break any Australian law.
And that is something regarding ritual killing that
has not been settled as yet.

It is clear that the vast majority of Muslims in France, as they did in Australia, do not support the actions of a radical minority, in fact they condemn such actions. Even our conservative leadership recognise that fact. So much evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion, be it Christian or Islam. Shows that all religions are useless.

SPQR the history of Iran under the US backed Shah was terrible, one form of extremism was replace by another. You reap what you sow.

Dear Banjo Patterson,

A few things need to be cleared up.

Firstly - yes the Christian Prayer (Our Father) has
opened Parliament for more than a century and this
was inherited from the British during colonial rule.
This subject has been brought up many times - and
the current PM still wants it to stay. However, many
Ministers want this changed to reflect a more
current and inclusive society. We shall have to wait
and see if this happens should there be a change in
government.

An Oath of Allegiance - now is available in two forms
with only one of which containing the phrase -
"So help me God."

As far as the role of the Queen goes in this country -
as a constitutional monarch the Queen acts entirely on the
advice of Australian Government Ministers who are responsible
to Parliament and what the Queen does in Britain - is not
the concern of Australia. The British government is
considered a foreign power in regard to Australia's domestic
and foreign affairs.

The Queen is represented in Australia at the Federal level
vy a Governot General. He or she is appointed by the
Queen on the advice of the PM and is completely independent
of the British government.

@Paul

How does this <<the history of Iran under the US backed Shah was terrible>> explain moderate-liberal-cosmopolitan Muslims suddenly adopting the one-eyed principles of fundamentalism?

And contrary to what you have imbibed from Greenie Sunday school sessions -- i dont think the Shahs Iran was as bad as you have been mislead into believing.

Dear SteeleRedux,

The case of the man who wrote those letters to
the families of deceased soldiers violates their
right to privacy and their right to maintain their
good reputation. It was not a violation of free
speech - but as Yuyutsu pointed out - it was
personal harrassment.

@Foxy, Wednesday, 14 January 2015 10:34:25 AM

If you are going to use a slab from Animals Australia you might as well cite the source.

You omitted to mention this too,

"THE head of the meat industry has joined animal welfare groups in opposing the religious slaughter of sheep while they are conscious, amid calls to ban the ''unnecessary and unconscionable'' practice in Australia.

At least 15 Australian abattoirs - including four in Victoria - have government approval to slit sheep's throats without stunning them for local and international halal (Muslim) and kosher (Jewish) markets.

A leading Jewish identity told The Sunday Age that about 500 sheep are killed by the kosher method in Victoria each week.
Studies into unstunned slaughter, including by the federal Department of Agriculture, have found the practice causes pain, distress, terror and panic in animals. Most sheep remained conscious for up to 20 seconds after their throats were cut.

One major abattoir, which had exported unstunned slaughtered sheep to the Middle East, said it stopped the practice due to animal welfare concerns."
http://www.animalsaustralia.org/media/in_the_news.php?article=2536

A leader in The Economist, pretty much sums up my thinking on this issue:

“The magazine was targeted because it cherished and promoted its right to offend: specifically to offend Muslims. That motive invokes two big themes. One is free speech, and whether it should have limits, self-imposed or otherwise. The answer to that is an emphatic no. The second is Muslim Europe—and whether episodes such as this are part of a civilisational struggle between Western democracies and extreme Islam, on a battlefield stretching continuously from Peshawar to Raqqa to the centre of Paris. Again, the answer is no.”

http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21638118-islamists-are-assailing-freedom-speech-vilifying-all-islam-wrong-way-counter

Dear Paul,

I very much agree with you about the need to not further alienate moderate Islam.

<<So much evil has been perpetrated in the name of religion, be it Christian or Islam. Shows that all religions are useless.>>

Yes, IN THE NAME, it's not religion, it's people abusing religion for their own ends, so it shows nothing about religion itself.

Now religion won't cook you an egg, nor is it meant to solve political problems, but deducing that it's useless is to misunderstand that its purpose is spiritual, not to achieve worldly results.

otb,

I read quite a variety of sources and chose the ones
I thought appropriate in response to your earlier
post. I do not tell you how to post and what to
include or leave out and it would be greatly
appreciated if you would return that courtesy.

Seeing as you seem to want to continue to discuss
ritual slaughter in this country - start your own
thread on this subject and you can add whatever you
like to your posts that in your opinion are very important.

I made it quite clear that - ritual slaughter is a
controversial issue
in this country and is still being investigated by
various authorities. We shall have to wait and see where
it all ends. Laws are passed by Parliament - and it would
help greatly if they were consisted - but when vested
interests are concerned and money is involved as well
as gaining the support of voters - it is not always an
easy task as we all well know. I am all for the humane
killing of animals - but I do not pass the laws in this
country. If you feel as strongly as I do on this subject
try contacting your local MP of the Federal MP - who may
be able to help you do something.

Cheers.

That is just a blow off, Foxy.

It suited your forever positive slant on multiculturalism, on Islam in particular it seems, to clip a section of the article posted by Animals Australia, omitting the header and significant sections that were at odds with what you were saying, and then not citing your source.

You leave the impression that you set out to mislead and now you are only compounding that deficiency.

Yuyutsu wrote;

“Those uninvited letters to the families of the deceased was a form of harassment, not of free speech.”

Shadow minister wrote;

“However distasteful the comments of the "Sheikh", I would support his right to state them in public, and the right of the public to ignore him. However, the moment he begins deliberately to target people with offensive letters, he commits a crime that is unrelated to free speech.”

And Foxy wrote;

“The case of the man who wrote those letters to
the families of deceased soldiers violates their
right to privacy and their right to maintain their
good reputation. It was not a violation of free
speech - but as Yuyutsu pointed out - it was
personal harrassment.”

Then we have a different version to what constitutes free speech and I would say your stance would be foreign to citizens of that bastion of free speech the US. There the Westboro Baptist Church picketed the private funerals of soldiers killed in action holding up signs saying things like “Pray for more dead soldiers”. Though many Americans found their actions thoroughly despicable and demeaning to those who lost their lives defending their country they are still permitted to stage their pickets although restrictions on the distance they must maintain have been introduced.

A number of pretty hard-arsed bikie gangs took deep exception to the actions of the WBC so what did they do? They lined up in front of those holding placards with large American flags to block the view of them from the families. The reason they did this instead of dispensing rough justice was largely because of their belief in the right of free speech.

The letters the so called 'Sheikh' sent the families of Australian families were incredibly mild by comparison. You might want to slip hairs about what constitutes a public vs a private protest but these were most certainly private funerals in the States.

You have to agree that your determination on what constitutes free speech is a personal rather than an absolute appraisal.

Dear SteeleRedux,

<<The letters the so called 'Sheikh' sent the families of Australian families were incredibly mild by comparison.>>

It makes no difference: if I write "Hello, how are you, have a nice day" to someone whom I know doesn't want to receive my communications, then it is harassment just the same, which is not on!

There should be no "right" to speak AT someone who doesn't want to listen.

Overall, free speech is not the greatest and most important freedom - people should be able to do whatever they like as long as they do not hurt others [without their consent] - emitting sounds from the mouth (or pen or keyboard) is just a specific case thereof and should not receive special treatment.

SR,

You are still pursuing that red herring. You need to differentiate the message from the method of sending it.

Using placards in a public area is simply expressing an opinion, no matter how vile, and free speech does not protect them from the actions of angry citizens. However, one can be prosecuted if one uses other methods.

If for example I used keys to scratch "vote abbott" on your car, my subsequent prosecution would have little to do with the sentiment expressed. Similarly, sending hate mail to grieving parents will lead to prosecution not related to free speech, but rather the abuse of the mail service.

If at some stage you manage to grasp this simple concept, then perhaps you can focus your intellect at section 18c that forbids all forms of speech that might be interpreted to offend anyone on the basis of race.

SM: at section 18c that forbids all forms of speech that might be interpreted to offend anyone on the basis of race.

So do you recon I could get an Aboriginal charged un the Act if he insults me by calling me a "Fuc#3n White B@&t@rd? I think not. Would I be charged for doing insulting him likewise? I think so.

Would a Feminist be charged under the Act for suggesting that I was a Violent Rapist because I'm a man. I think not. Would I be charged for ridiculing a feminist in print. I think so.

It's been explained to me that "White Anglo-Saxon Men" have "Power," the others don't. What ever that means. That's why they don't get charged.

So much for free speech & 18c of the Act. Ay.

otb,

Let me get this straight - you know what
I think better than I do. Hmmm.
In that case the only one trying to mislead here
is you.
I shall leave you to it.

Dear SteeleRedux.

I think there is a difference between attending
a funeral and holding up placards at a respectful
distance to writting personal venomous letter to
family members who have just lost their sons
in battle. Of course that is my take on the situation.

As far as Freedom of speech is concerned - all societies
including democratic ones put various limitations on
what people may say. They prohibit certain types of
spech that they believe might harm government or
the people. But drawing a line between dangerous and
harmless speech can be extremely difficult. Most
democratic countries have four major restrictions on
free expression - laws covering libel, laws that offend
public decency by using obscenities or by encouraging
people to commit acts considered immoral. Laws against
spying, treason, and urging violence prohibit speech that
endangers life, property or national security.

The development of freedom of speech in most Western
countries has been brought about through the growth of
democratic governments based on the rule of law. In other
countries this freedom has grown slowly, or not at all.

I found the following article by Randa Abdel-Fattah very interesting

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2015/01/12/4160711.htm

Dear Shadow Minister,

Rather than a red herring this case was directly relevant to the issue of freedom of speech in this country and if you would care to temper a little of the belligerence you might be able to grasp some of the concepts.

Naturally if the Sheikh had hand delivered the letters he would not have faced sanction. In fact he came within one vote of getting his conviction squashed on the grounds that 'using a postal service to cause offense' was not constitutionally valid

“Just last Friday, Monis had been pursuing that legal battle in the High Court of Australia’s Sydney courtroom, 100 metres away from the Martin Place cafe.

Monis’s obsession was not about the truth. He never denied writing offensive letters to the bereaved, nor did he show remorse for doing so. Indeed, he pleaded guilty last year and received a sentence of community service and a good behaviour bond.
Rather, his obsession was about the law. He has always maintained that the federal offence he was charged with and sentenced under – using a postal service to cause offence – was unconstitutional.
His argument is similar to one made in the United States a few years ago, after a fringe sect, the Westboro Baptist Church, picketed soldiers’ funerals with banners such as “God hates fags”. The US Supreme Court bench ruled eight members to one that a civil claim against the sect’s members for damages undermined their right to freedom of speech. But Australia’s constitution is different. We don’t have a Bill of Rights and only a narrow “freedom of political communication”. Monis’s constitutional claim was no certainty.
http://theconversation.com/man-haron-moniss-poison-letters-split-the-high-court-and-laid-bare-a-flaw-in-the-system-35557

“The three judges who found the law invalid (Chief Justice French and Justices Hayne and Heydon) did so on the basis (1) that the law was aimed at preventing offense and (2) that preventing offense is not a ‘legitimate aim’ compatible with the constitutionally prescribed system of representative and responsible government.”
http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/04/26/stone-monis/

Do you understand the difference between causing offense and inciting racial hatred?

.

Charlie Hebdo

.

The sale of the resuscitated Charlie Hebdo got off with a bounce this morning. The 700,000 copies were sold in less than an hour of the opening of the newsstands. At 3 euros ($ 4.34) a copy, that makes a total of € 2.1 million ($ 3.04 million).

Another million copies are being printed today and will be in the newsstands tomorrow morning. The magazine plans to print 5 million copies in all. Normal production is 600,000 copies which usually take about two weeks to be sold and, even then, not all are sold.

The government has offered € 1 million to help Charlie Hebdo get back up on its feet but it is unlikely the magazine will accept in view of its policy of total independence from all outside sources other than its readers.

It is reported in the French press that The Weekend Australian published a cartoon of Bill Leak today (Wednesday, 14 January) illustrating a conversation between Jesus and Muhammad :

http://www.sudouest.fr/2015/01/10/charlie-hebdo-un-journal-australien-publie-une-caricature-du-prophete-mahomet-1792604-6092.php

During its session yesterday, the Assemblée Nationale (lower house of parliament) observed a minute of silence followed, spontaneously, by the singing of the national anthem.

The French jihadisists’ mentor, a young French Muslim who has been training in a public hospital in Paris to become a nurse, was fired immediately after the attacks. He had been sentenced to 6 years in jail (of which he served three and a half years) for his role as mentor of the jihadists to whom he gave religious lessons. He was interviewed on French television and said he had nothing to do with the attacks and condemned them.

He added that his former pupils were not interested in the Koran or Islam. All they ever talked about was combat.

.

Dear Banjo,

I came accroos the following: http://www.les-crises.fr/indecense-rendons-hommage-a-charlie/. I like especially the quote at the end: "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they prefer to avoid." [Sören Kierkegaard].

I gather the site represents a minority view in France. What do you know about it, what do you think, how negligible is that minority?

.

Dear Foxy,

.

Many thanks for your response (top of page 14 of this thread).

I am sure you are right in thinking that the Queen has many more interesting things to do than become involved in Australian politics. The fact remains, she is both the head of State of Australia, with full constitutional powers, and Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

Consequently, it seems to me that we do not have a secular head of State.

The fact that the Church of England in Australia became autocephalous on 1 January 1962 and changed its name to the Anglican Church of Australia 20 years later, on 24 August 1981, does not alter the fact that our head of State is also the head of a faith-based organisation.

As you mentioned: “The British government is considered a foreign power …”. Our head of State is also a foreign person. She does not have Australian nationality, nor have any of her predecessors held Australian nationality. We managed to emancipate ourselves from the British government, now …

We were subjects of the British Crown until the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 1984 put an end to our subjection with effect from 1 May 1987.

The monarchy of Australia is a very elaborate structure. It is a structure on paper which has never really been put to the test. As long as there are no major problems, no conflict of interests, everything is fine. The fairy tale of kings and queens and princes and princesses in beautiful palaces and horse-drawn carriages can continue…

I guess we just have to keep our fingers crossed and hope it stays that way until we become mature enough to face up to reality and cut the umbilical cord with the British Crown and act like grownups.

Until that day, you’re right, let’s just settle down, relax, lie back, and dream on …

https://ouvirmusica.com.br/neil-diamond/839770/

.

.

Let's try that link again :

http://ouvirmusica.com.br/neil-diamond/839770/

.

Dear Banjo Patterson,

Thank You for your response. I truly
enjoy productive and constructive discussions
that actually invite the exchange of information.
They make me want to not only visit
but participate. You, SteeleRedux, Poirot, and quite a
few others, have that great style of spoting.

Thanks also for the music link. I love Neil Diamond (I'm A
Believer). And talking about preaching - here's one
you may recognise from Dusty Springfield:

http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/dustyspringfield/sonofapreacherman.html

cont'd ...

I've just noticed that I've been mis-spelling your
surname. My apologies. Goodness me - and you never
said a word. You Sir, are a gentleman!

Big hug!

.

Dear George,

.

« I gather the site represents a minority view in France. What do you know about it, what do you think, how negligible is that minority? »
.

I am afraid I do not know the site nor its author. I suspect that many French people in France would probably share his analysis but not so many would share his conclusion. My impression is that the French are no more naïve than most other evolved societies as regards politicians and media moguls.

Naturally, the blogger’s vision of these dramatic events is shared by many people in France and naturally they measure the pros and cons of Charlie Hebdo’s satirical caricatures. But, as the blogger clearly indicates, his objective is “social risk management”. It is not difficult for most reasonable people (or “bons pères de famille” as we say in French) to imagine what they, society, or Chalie Hebdo should do, or avoid doing, in order to manage “social risk”.

I think it is true to say that the French have very good reasons to place “Freedom” very high on the list of values to be honoured, cherished and defended. Most know the answer to the question: “What’s the worth of living if you’re not Free?”. They know that “if you give an inch, they will take a mile!”

In my opinion, they understand the “play safe” method of the blogger but the blogger does not understand the importance of what is at stake so far as his fellow countrymen are concerned. They are willing to take much more risk than he can imagine. He has underestimated the value of “Freedom” to the French people.

That quotation of Kierkegaard sounds amusing but I’m not so sure of its validity. Maybe he’s right and maybe he’s not. Anyway, the French have other references such as Rabelais, for example:

« Le rire est le propre de l’homme » ( « what distinguishes man is his capacity to laugh »)

.

.

SR, your last post actually reinforces my point not yours.

Monis was pointedly not prosecuted for the content of his letters, rather for using the postal system for doing so.

Free speech means that you cannot be prosecuted for stating your opinion, however, this does not necessarily give you the right to use every means to publicise your views.

A paper can choose not to print your letter or paid advertisement, your worksite can fire you for harassment, another worksite can exclude you from protesting on its land or prosecute you for trespass, and likewise the postal service (a government body) imposes penalties for abuses of its services. Similarly, free speech does not protect you from legitimate retribution from others. Individuals, Companies and associations can exclude or boycott you.

However, if I printed the magazine Charlie Hebdo, or stated on a placard in a public place that white aboriginals were rorting the system in Aus, I could be prosecuted under section 18c irrespective of the merits of the argument simply because it caused offense.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I disagree with your claim that you could be
punished under section 18C simply because you
caused offense. You would have to have made
factual errors and false statements for that
to occur.

Foxy: I disagree with your claim that you could be punished under section 18C simply because you caused offense. You would have to have made factual errors and false statements for that to occur.

Whoooo--ah. You're game Foxy.

Foxy,

You are confusing the issues from the Bolt case. The inaccuracies were an aggravating issue, but not why he was prosecuted:

There is no need for factual inaccuracy for a prosecution under 18c, and would make it illegal to print Charlie Hebdo in this country.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/rda1975202/s18c.html

(1) It is unlawful for a person to do an act, otherwise than in private, if:

(a) the act is reasonably likely, in all the circumstances, to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate another person or a group of people; and

(b) the act is done because of the race, colour or national or ethnic origin of the other person or of some or all of the people in the group.

Note: Subsection (1) makes certain acts unlawful. Section 46P of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 allows people to make complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission about unlawful acts. However, an unlawful act is not necessarily a criminal offence. Section 26 says that this Act does not make it an offence to do an act that is unlawful because of this Part, unless Part IV expressly says that the act is an offence.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an act is taken not to be done in private if it:

(a) causes words, sounds, images or writing to be communicated to the public; or

(b) is done in a public place; or

(c) is done in the sight or hearing of people who are in a public place.

(3) In this section:

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, whether express or implied and whether or not a charge is made for admission to the place.

Yeah Jayd,

I think anyone with an ounce of independent thought knows that Andrew Bolt was prosecuted because he dared to challenge the PC establishment.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The reason why Andrew Bolt was prosecuted was because
Justice Mordecai Brombrg found Bolt had breached the
Act because the articles were not written in good
faith and contained factual errors. The case was
clearly not about freedom of speech. It was about
freedom to spread untruths as the following link
confirms:

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/one-year-on-how-to-twist-and-shout-down-a-legal-judgement/402/

Dear Shadow Minister,

Lol. A little circular my friend but I will let it slide.

This is the section of the Criminal Code Act in question;

471.12  Using a postal or similar service to menace, harass or cause offence
A person is guilty of an offence if:
(a)  the person uses a postal or similar service; and
(b)  the person does so in a way (whether by the method of use or the content of a communication, or both) that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, menacing, harassing or offensive.

Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years.

My question to you is do you consider this law is detrimental or negatively impacts free speech, particularly of the political variety, in this country?

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the insider view information. I think nobody - not even the blogger (I have to admit I “cheated”: my French is not that good, I read the Czech translation of the article) - doubts that freedom of speech is an unassailable part of our Western culture. The question is only whether this implies the right to offend, insult, which is very different from the right to question or criticise others.

The same punch in the face might cause only a bloody nose for one victim but be a health hazard for a frail person. I think this distinction should be applied also to verbal (or cartoon) “punches”. The archbishop of Paris condemned the massacre and saw the cartoons (including those targeting Christianity) only as being in an extremely bad taste. Many Muslims, including their leaders, while still condemning the terrorist assault, felt extremely offended by them.

The French inspired many with their “Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité”. I hope the “Je sui Charlie” movement, seen as defending the “right to offend those I disagree with or don't like” will not become as representative of the French contribution to 21st century Western culture as that noble slogan became in the 19th century.

Hi George,

Punching someone in the face (or beheading them etc.) because you disagree with them is not freedom of speech but violence. There are laws in most places against that.

Of course some of the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo were in very poor taste, cheap shots, very offensive and insulting. I wouldn't agree with many of them. But that's what free speech means: the right to publish or express views that you or I don't agree with.

Do we have to go through this all over again ? - that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend, the right to make comments that somebody, somewhere, might find offensive or insulting.

The alternative is ? Only to make bland, careful statements that one is sure will not criticise, offend or insult someone or their views ? Or not to make any remarks at all, just to be on the safe side ? Is that the sort of society you want to live in ?

Joe

.

Dear George,

.

« The question is only whether this implies the right to offend, insult, which is very different from the right to question or criticise others. »
.

That’s right, George, that is the crux of the problem.

The other question is “who decides what I am allowed to do and what I am not allowed to do in my own country?”. Who decides the laws I must respect?

In international law a state or a governing body has the full right and power to govern itself without any interference from outside sources or bodies. The principle of sovereignty applies.

Law and justice are determined and administered by the political regimes they serve.

The United Nations estimates that 60% of people in the world do not have access to justice and even where justice systems exist, they are often corrupt or discriminatory.

In 2012, Amnesty International found that 101of the 196 countries in the world repress their people’s right to freedom of expression; 80 countries systematically conduct unfair trials denying their citizens justice and 112 countries torture their citizens. By the end of 2013, according to the United Nations, 51.2 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations.

Amnesty challenges the sacrosanct concept of sovereignty. It declares: “In pursuit of freedoms, rights and equality, we need to rethink sovereignty. States routinely claim sovereignty – equating it to control over internal affairs without external interference – so they can do what they want … we need to redefine sovereignty and recognize both global solidarity and global responsibility.

In this context, so far as the dichotomy “freedom and religion” is concerned, it is my opinion that religions should be made autocephalous in each sovereign state. At the international level, the Human Rights laws to apply in respect of freedom of the press, freedom of expression and religion should be established within the framework of the United Nations.

The same procedure should apply as regards such matters as the wearing of the veil and other religious signs and symbols.

.

Ah...humans are full of hypocisy - coud be humanity's defining trait.

Get a load of this from 2005...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4337031.stm

"France's Catholic Church has won a court injunction to ban a clothing advertisement based on Leonardo da Vinci's Christ's Last Supper.

The display was ruled "a gratuitous and aggressive act of intrusion on people's innermost beliefs", by a judge.

The church objected to the female version of the fresco, which includes a female Christ, used by clothing designers Marithe et Francois Girbaud.

The authorities in the Italian city of Milan banned the poster last month.

The French judge in the case ordered that all posters on display should be taken down within three days.

The association which represented the church was also awarded costs."

Loudmouth: that the right to freedom of expression includes the right to offend, the right to make comments that somebody, somewhere, might find offensive or insulting.

The important word here being "Might."

I find that "being offended" has become an Industry. Most of "being offended" is couched in the name of Political Correctness. Often I hear the expression, "You can't say, or do, that, someone "might" be offended." This is used as a means of restricting a persons means of expression. Eg; If I said, "Black Ba$ta&d" to an Aboriginal that would be offensive to that person. If an Aboriginal person said, "White C###" to me. Apparently that isn't, if you wished to pursue the matter through the Courts.

I find that most Politically Correct people feign offence at anything they can so they can appear to be more Political Correct than their Compatriots. A sort of one upmanship that really has got out of hand.

Often I ask people who say that if, they, are personally offended. Mostly they answer "No, but someone "might" take offence." & some times they feign offence because that is the Politically Correct thing to do. Difference between being on display in Public & being at Home with the Hubby & Kids.

It's the same with some Political Cartoons, such as Larry Pickering. Feigning disgust in Public & laughing at the cartoon at home.

Hi there BANJO PATERSON...

I read where you quote a United Nations estimate that 60% of the world's population doesn't have access to an equitable justice system ? And even those of that 60% who do, find their form of justice is invariably corrupt ?

I wasn't aware of those UN figures you've quoted herein ? However, even in an enlightened developed nation like Australia, access to justice in criminal jurisprudence, that too is questionable as well ? Most would accept the proposition; 'there's one law for the rich, and another for the poor' ? Sad but nevertheless true.

However, if you happen to be a well known, high profile ne'er do well, notwithstanding a publicly funded defence, is rigorously 'means tested'. Mysteriously then it would appear the Public Defender manages to dig very deeply within their 'cash strapped' budget to locate sufficient funds to brief a prominent SC or alternatively a QC to act for that individual ?

All the while, we the masses, if we wish access to justice we must first, pay for it ! An extraordinary situation isn't it, we need to 'purchase' our justice, here in good ol' developed Oz, in 2015 ? One should have no illusions about justice, either here in Australia, the United States or Great Britain for that matter. If you have immensely deep pockets, if it's justice you want, generally speaking it's justice you'll get ?

Regrettably, barrister's as a rule don't offer a Lay By option, though some might furnish you with some assistance, to mortgage one's home perhaps, in order to fund your legal defence, you can only approach them I suppose ?

Foxy,

Because the judge mentioned inaccuracies did not mean that is what Bolt was convicted of. Read the judgement in full.

SR,

My argument is on 2 clearly defined issues
1) message
2) delivery method,
You are the one erroneously conflating them.

While there is a tort argument that with no delivery method there is no free speech, the reality is that there is a multitude of delivery methods available.

Monis had the opportunity to deliver the letters by hand, post them to someone that would, take out ads in local papers, or any of a multitude of delivery methods. He could even have changed his wording so as to get the message across without being so offensive.

The claim that the inability to deliver abusive letters by post is an infringement of freedom of speech is a bit of a stretch.

On the other side of the coin, 18c clearly bans any public statement that might be perceived as racially offensive. This is a clear violation of the right of free speech.

Dear Shadow Minister,

The central issue in the Bolt judgement was not
whether Mr Bolt's articles were an expression of
opinion, but whether the factual allegations on which
that opinion was based were accurate.

The judge concluded that the case was not about
freedom of opinion, it was about freedom to spread
untruths.

I did read the full transcript - as did Emma Alberici in
her interview on Lateline with Attorney General George
Brandis.

Cheers.

Hi Loudmouth,

My post was not about physical but verbal violence; I used the metaphor of different recipients of such punches to underline the difference between the Archbishop's and imams’ reactions to the cartoons. Of course, a hundred or so years ago the Archbishop would have reacted not much differently from contemporary imams.

The problem is not with a “comment that somebody somewhere might find insulting” but with caricatures serving no other purpose than to offend over a billion people.

Dear Banjo (and also Loudmoth),

>>« The question is only whether this implies the right to offend, insult, »
.That’s right, George, that is the crux of the problem. <<

In http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6699#202947 I wrote of three levels of this problem: legal, decency and practical.

I might agree with most of what you wrote as far as the legal dimension is concerned, although there are also limits to what is allowed, what groups or views you are not allowed to offend even in Western countries.

Where I see problems is when indecency, rudeness, impudence etc are elevated to the level of a “right” to offend. It is my good right to criticise what you say but it should not be my “right” to make a point by saying something offensive, vulgar, about e.g. your deceased mother.

On the third, practical level, is it worth to make use of such “right”, which offends a billion of people with thousands among them ready to react violently? Is this the best way to integrate Muslims, who keep on coming into Europe (and Australia) , into Western culture, or make them accept our justified criticism of, say, their treatment of women?

Poirot,

This is a good illustration of the difference between the legal and mere decency levels of the offence question. A different judge might have decided differently, I think the law is rather fluent here. After all, that advertisement offended not only the religious feelings but also Europeans’ cultural self-awareness, notably in Italy. In Catholic Philippines practically nobody would associate the advertisement with anything to do with Jesus, unless explicitly told so.

Another question is, did the advertisers really think that this would have sold more of their products? I am sure it would not a couple of decades ago, but maybe Dan Brown’s “Da Vinci Code” made that difference. If so, what does this say about modern Europe’s attitude towards its own cultural heritage?

.

DearGeorge,

.

« Where I see problems is when indecency, rudeness, impudence etc are elevated to the level of a “right” to offend. »

.

I know what you are saying and I generally try to be a fairly decent and respectful person myself. Though I occasionally read Charlie Hebdo, it’s not really my cup of tea. I prefer elegance and refinement to vulgarity and I prefer prose, poetry and song to cartoons.

In Europe, of course, we have a wide range of political and philosophical currents and under-currents - from the extreme left to the extreme right, including anarchists, free-thinkers, libertarians and many others. Our societies are multicultural, mature, broad-minded and tolerant. The melting pot simmers gently without boiling over.

What has changed, in my opinion, is the interconnectedness and interaction of the less advanced societies and civilisations with ours. What they see shocks them. It is not just religion, our whole way of life is an insult to them.

As somebody observed: when a butterfly bats its wings on one side of the world, it causes a hurricane on the other side of the world.

While I don’t particularly like what they do at Charlie Hebdo, in my view, it would be a regression of our civilisation for them to be prevented from doing it.

From a purely “decency” point of view, I think the French attitude, prior to the terrorist attack, was the most appropriate: just ignore it.

Charlie Hebdo does not impose anything on anybody. The Muslims, Jews and Christians do not either. The jihads want to impose their law on everybody.

Before the attack, Charlie Hebdo was practically unknown and close to bankruptcy. Now it is known worldwide and its coffers are overflowing. The jihads have thrown it onto the world scene under the spotlights for all to see and demand that it be condemned.

They have won the battle, but, happily, they have not yet won the war.

Unfortunately, they have succeeded in polarising public opinion for or against, with no in-between. There is no fence to sit on.

.

Hi George,

Fascinating. Do you see a slight contradiction here:

" ..... is it worth to make use of such “right”, which offends a billion of people with thousands among them ready to react violently? Is this the best way to integrate Muslims, who keep on coming into Europe (and Australia) ..... "

not to mention a back-handed slur, and a concession to terrorism ?

Surely you should have the right, when attempting to express yourself, to say or write something which you suspect I might find offensive or insulting ? What is the point of OLO if none of us ever offends any other poster ? Women's Weekly dialogue, deferring to the decency police ? Is that what we want ?

Of course, that freedom must include the right to say or write something that you or I wouldn't, provided it doesn't deliberately humiliate, intimidate or incite violence: neither you or I should stand on guard, at the gates of what is polite and therefore acceptable, keeping out infringers.

As for the integration of people who supposedly can't take any criticism without resorting to violence, as you imply, perhaps we need to be more attentive, once they are here, to educating people to understand the notion of human rights - theirs, as well as those of others - in the modern world. IF it is necessary, that is.

Joe

Loudmouth,

"Surely you should have the right, when attempting to express yourself, to say or write something which you suspect I might find offensive or insulting ? What is the point of OLO if none of us ever offends any other poster ?...."

I'll just add that OLO is what one might refer to as a sub-forum of society - and, like many other institutions, it has the power to make its own rules regarding what is and is not acceptable as far as free speech goes.

So there are things we can't say on OLO (and other places) that are legally acceptable in wider society, but we tacitly agree to abide by those terms when we sign up.

Yes indeed, Poirot, and those limits thankfully go well beyond what one might see in the Woman's Weekly. Long may it be so.

Joe

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for the reply, I agree with most of what you wrote.

>>The jihads want to impose their law on everybody. <<

Is offending not only what they claim makes them tick, but what actually is sacred to all the 7% of French people that are Muslims the right way to convince them not to impose sharia on us because an open society that grants freedoms of speech is superior to the one which does not even for them? As I said, if I do not like your behaviour and would like to change it, is saying (or drawing) vulgar things about your mother the best way to go about it?

>>it would be a regression of our civilisation for them to be prevented from doing it.<<

Prevention, puts it on the legal level, and I am concerned not on what is legal but what is civilised. I don’t think it would be a regression if I criticised, and questioned what you say and do without offending you, as mentioned above, even if nobody could prevent me from being offensive. It is not a regression if you criticise a Jew but refrain from making fun of the Holocaust.

Again, thank you for the informed insight into the French soul which I understand much less than the Russian or German soul.

By the way, the German reaction to the Je-sui-Charlie movement is an increased reassurance by Frau Merkel to the Muslim (mostly Turkish) community here; she just officially repeated the sentence “Not only Christianity and Judaism but also Islam belongs to Germany”, first uttered in 2010 by the then President Christian Wulf when it was still somewhat controversial. Something like telling the French we respect your understanding of free speech, and at the same time telling her own Muslims, never mind that, we respect you as you are, including your religion, please keep on integrating (True, we do not have here troublesome banlieues, at least not to that extent).

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Wow - you actually read The Australian Women's Weekly?

Good on you!

Foxy,

I don't think I've bought one since it was a "weekly".

Dear Poirot,

I buy it for my mum - she's in an aged care
facility and shares it with her neighbours.
Bless her! They all love it! They're in their
nineties.

Not since I was a kid, Foxy :) Even so, my brain has probably turned to mush with all that red wine :) How do you think your discussion has been going so far ?

George,

Ever more fascinating:

" .... Is offending not only what they claim makes them tick, but what actually is sacred to all the 7% of French people that are Muslims the right way to convince them not to impose sharia on us because an open society that grants freedoms of speech is superior to the one which does not even for them? As I said, if I do not like your behaviour and would like to change it, is saying (or drawing) vulgar things about your mother the best way to go about it? ....."

So 7 % is going to tell 93 % how to behave ? Long may we never have 'sharia imposed on us'. And why not ? [Apart from the antidemocratic requirements, that is],

* precisely because of the vast superiority of an open society over a closed one, every time;

* because of the superiority of a society which recognises and defends the equality of the sexes over a backward, patriarchal and out-dated one which doesn't;

* because of the vast superiority of a society which allows, even encourages, discussion and dispute, even to the point of acrimony, over a vile and primitive society which doesn't.

Accept sharia ? Is that what the 'Left' is coming to ? Fall on your belly and call yourself dhimmi ? Shameful.

And rumours to the contrary, neither I or any of the blokes in my old football team know your mother. We were all just good friends.

Joe

Yeah, lovely, Loudmouth,

What would inspire you to end your post to George In such a manner?

You're interacting with a mature, educated fellow poster.

Just because you have the freedom of expression to act coarsely doesn't mean you have to enact it.

Hi Loudmouth,

I do not see at who that “slur” is supposed to be directed unless you mean those who like to ridicule others. Well, I admit, I do not endorse such right.

Somebody could find some posters or drawings offending, and you are right that this is mostly individual, although even that should be avoided. However, there are offences that are not so individual, (see my repeated reference to saying something vulgar about somebody’s mother) that most of us would find offensive; depicting the Prophet, even more if in an unfavourable form, is offensive to all Muslims and will trigger - as everybody, including the catoonists, knows - violent reaction by some, with a number of innocent victims.

I do not see how my dislike of the "right to offend" at all costs is a concession to terrorism; if at all it is a concession to honest criticism with a chance of being accepted. Being decent when criticising those whose behaviour we would want to change is not a guarantee of success (probably hopeless when applied to Islamists - they are dealt with by the Police) but being vulgar, rude is a guarantee of failure, of making them feel alienated instead of wanting to be integrated in our society. I do not know if I can convince you of something, but I can be sure I cannot if I make use of my “right” to offend you.

>>As for the integration of people who supposedly can't take any criticism without resorting to violence, as you imply, perhaps we need to be more attentive, once they are here, to educating people to understand the notion of human rights - theirs, as well as those of others - in the modern world.<<

I agree, here you speak of criticism, education etc, not offending cartoons with no other purpose than providing fun. You will hardly make somebody understand and accept the notion of human rights if you include the right to offend (rather than criticise) those you do not like.

I see now, I am repeating myself.

Yes, George, you are repeating yourself because, with respect, you still don't get it - that the right to offend is everybody else's right, 'even if' you or I wouldn't do it: what is 'right' for us, what you call 'decent', should not by any means be the limit to what other people can do.

Can you understand that ? Can't you see how authoritarian that would be ? i.e. that nobody should be more offensive than we are, in our 'decency' ?

But you also miss the point: " You will hardly make somebody understand and accept the notion of human rights if you include the right to offend (rather than criticise) those you do not like."

Please don't shift from disagreeing with a viewpoint etc., to disliking a person: that really shouldn't come into it. One can argue furiously with someone without disliking them. Whether you do or not is irrelevant, or should be. We should stick to issues, not personalities: we can leave personal attacks and ad hominems to lesser minds :)

We should always have the right to criticise ideas, and even offend those who rever them. Why should any ideas be off-limits ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I think this discussion is going great.
Much better than I thought it would.

I've got a question for you though.

What do you see as the difference between
offense and verbal abuse?

Just curious.

Hi Foxy,

Yes, it's uncovering a lot of misconceptions, isn't it ?

'Offence' and 'verbal abuse': Maybe the differentiation might be that 'offense' is what people take when their ideas are criticised or attacked; 'verbal abuse' is more likely to be aimed at people: personal abuse.

Maybe it's the difference between ad rem and ad hominem. But even when people make comments which are completely contemptible, one should of course always keep to the topic, and not abuse that person personally, no matter how shallow and cretinous their comments may be.

So I suppose, very roughly, 'offence' is quite permissible, but 'verbal abuse' may not be.

What's your take on it ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'd like you to read the following link:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-blessed-are-the-tolerant

The author tells us that -

"There have been countless defences of the right
of people to be offensive and we've been told by
many that the proper way to express solidarity
with the victims and oppose the crimes is to
reprint the most offensive of the cartoons."

I find that logic strange.

Of course I fully understand that as the author
states that for freedom of speech to have meaning
people must be willing to say things that cause
offense, even horror, disgust and fury. That
the offended must be tolerant and find non-violent
ways of responding.

But should it really be just about finding new
and edgier ways of offending?

Should we not also look more closely at our own
boundaries of what can and can't be said?

cont'd ...

Let's try that link again:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/12/charlie-hebdo-blessed-are-tolerant

Hi Foxy,

I guess it's a bit like the right to get divorced, you don't have to exercise it. But other people should have that right, even if you don't exercise yours.

I don't think that the 'offended' should have to be any more tolerant - do you mean 'turn the other cheek' ? Not to respond with offence ? - than the person who offended their ideas.

But I don't know what you mean fully when you suggest,

"Should we not also look more closely at our own boundaries of what can and can't be said?"

I'm more inclined to another point of view, in relation to Charlie Hebdo:

"From news reports coming out of Paris, there are .... some people who feel that the editor of the satirical magazine should not have poured oil onto the fire by deliberately knowing that his actions would provoke an extremist reaction...... did the Editor go too far. I don't think so, but then that's only my opinion. "

I agree fully with that opinion.

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thanks for quoting me.(cute).

However, you need to read the link I gave in my recent
previous post - it explains fully the point
that's being made.

cont'd ...

Perhaps this link may clarify things for you:

http://newmatilda.com/2015/01/14/giving-bigots-more-rights-wrong-response-charlie-hebdo-massacre

Hi Foxy,

I suppose it depends how you define 'bigot', and who decides who is and who isn't one.

If a bigot is someone who has an opinion which can't be shaken, no matter what evidence is produced against their point of view, then most of us are bigots, one way or another. Most of us hang onto an opinion, regardless: surely we've seen that often enough on these pages ?

As for who is to decide, we are in even deeper waters. Yes, in an ideal world, nobody would hold bigoted views - when evidence is produced against someone's strongly-held views, they willingly change them in the face of evidence.

Let me know when that ever happens :)

Love,

Joe

Loudmouth,

"If a bigot is someone who has an opinion which can't be shaken, no matter what evidence is produced against their point of view, then most of us are bigots, one way or another. Most of us hang onto an opinion, regardless..."

Seems to concur with the Cambridge dictionary definition:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/bigot

(Btw, the second example they've given is spot on!)

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

A bigot - is classed as one who is strongly partial to one's
own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant
of those who differ.

As given by the Free Dictionary on the web.

I have to admit - I don't know many people who fit
that description.

You may also be interested in the following link.
It appears that newspaper editors in the UK have decided
not to re-publish the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
The link explains why:

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish

Hi Foxy,

[My fourth post in 24 hrs, I think].

I would have thought that a bigot is one who may or may not be intolerant, but more to the point, won't change their opinion, no matter what evidence is thrown at them.

On that basis, most of are, on some issue or other.

It may include someone who has nothing but kind words for somebody else's strongly-held view, but which many others find, on the basis of ample evidence, to be repugnant and backward.

Take the issue of gender equality, for instance: your kind nature, Foxy, would lead you to play down any of its adverse effects on Muslim women and girls. I'm too tactful to bring some of the evils of gender inequality to your attention, but I suspect that if I did, you would demur, put in a good word for a particular practice - with your good nature you couldn't help yourself but you would - I have to say - put yourself in the position of someone who won't change her mind, no matter what. Goodness and kindness have their limits :)

Perhaps, on that definition, I'm a bigot when it comes to describing your good self. Nothing seems to shake that belief.

Love,

Joe

Loudmouth,

>>We should always have the right to criticise ideas, and even offend those who rever them. Why should any ideas be off-limits ? <<

Of course, I agree with this bit, and I also agree that there is no point in repeating myself again. Nevertheless, let me repeat just this: I THINK (you apparently don’t|) that the &#147;right” to offend, ridicule, verbally or through a cartoon with no intention to communicate anything, only to hurt (the feelings of a large group of people), is NOT THE SAME as the right to criticise, argue (furiously or not), express an idea, etc., however received by this or that individual.

There is ferocious 'Progressive' political correctness in Australia. It has been that way for years.

Who can forget the deluge of bile showered upon Mem Fox and Leunig for pointing out the rather obvious fact that very young infants are better with the devoted attention of the primary care giver at home and preferably, mum?

While Mem Fox, Leunig, other fearless commentators and whistle blowers have been greatly harmed by 'risking it' where others believed the price of freedom of speech was too big to pay, we as a society are far better off that they did what they did. - Even if many of us were too lazy and gutless to support them by at least demanding explanations and accountability of decision-makers.

So I say to George and others, you can 'THINK' whatever you like and say whatever you like. That is your right. However, where your clever rhetoric is aimed at limiting the freedom of speech you might pardon the remainder of us for assuming you have some secondary agenda and are definitely no champion of free speech, or of accountability.

Australia needs an Oz Charlie Hebdo to prick our consciences and to nag until we finally get out of our comfort zone and take action. First target being the political correctness that gags us.

George: a cartoon with no intention to communicate anything,

Ah... But Cartoons do communicate & they do it much better than Politically Correct words ever could. If the party targeted chooses to be offended that is their problem.

In Australia we recognize the truth behind the cartoon & have a laugh. Whether we are the people looking at the Cartoon & recognizing the message, or the Target seeing them selves in the message.

Australians have an inane sense of humour as part of our Culture. There-in lies the difference between Australian Culture & Islamic ideology. We are not compatible.

OTB: First target being the political correctness that gags us.

I second that. Well said. The definition of "Political Correctness," Trying to Pick up a tu#d by the clean end.

Jayb,

>>In Australia we recognize the truth behind the cartoon & have a laugh. <<

True, but when I wrote that an offence or insult (in distinction to e.g. a critique) does not communicate a message, I had in mind the targeted group, not those who “self-communicate” some message by “having a laugh”. There is constructive and non-constructive criticism, but only “non-constructive” ridicule.

But still, you would have a point if one could stop the increasing immigration of Muslims, refugees or not, to Europe (and perhaps also to Australia) which obviously is not the case for a number of reasons.

On The Beach,

There used to be 'OZ' and various scurrilous university student journals (and maybe 'Private Eye' or was that just in Britain ?) and of course the wonderful Nation Review: some of their cartoons were just brilliant.

I ran a scurrilous journal myself, 1973-1974, Black News, an el Cheapo roneo thing. I cringe when I look at some of the stuff my wife and I put in it. Funny how some of the same rubbish has come around again with the Aboriginal Sovereignty Movement, and the push for the recognition of 'nations', i.e. families/clans/clan land.

I don't know if Green Left Weekly runs cartoons - the Left doesn't seem to have a sense of humour these days [totalitarians end not to have senses of humours], they have to double-check first whether or not they can laugh without offending other totalitarians.

But I certainly miss Oz and Nation Review. John Hepworth ran some uproarious columns for the NR, and Cook's cartoons (and Leunig's too) stay in the memory.

I wonder what sort of humour we can expect under Shari'a ? Is there any in the Koran ? Does Allah ever have a good chuckle ?

Muhammad walks into a bar ..... no, I don't think so.

A Samaritan, a Jew and an Arab are shipwrecked along with a herd of piglets and a barrel of rum ..... No, not that either.

A woman says to her husband ..... no, they have to wait for permission to speak, that wouldn't work.

A terrorist gets shot by a woman sniper and knocks on the closed doors of Paradise ..... No, not much funny in what happens next.

We might have to leave humour to the Jews. They know how to laugh at themselves, as human beings.

Joe

Hi there LOUDMOUTH...

G'day there Joe...

You speak of the old 'Nation Review', a terrible rag in my humble opinion ? Me and a couple of other detectives were named, as conspiring to murder a well known Sydney crim, who's matter we were currently investigating ? Fortunately the allegation was so broad and the language employed by this fool, so 'loose', we never received a visit from Internal Investigators ?

Still to publish material that may have had a deleterious effect upon the progress of our investigation was in very poor taste I reckon ? You'll note Joe, I omitted to use the word 'journalistic' taste !

Charlie Hebdo from what I understand were radical Leftists who espoused vulgarity over real wit. And were anti-Racists (a Lefty obsession to cause divisiveness) and were just about to publish an attack on Michel Houllebeque for criticising Islam in his novels. Go figure! Talk about confusing and tres stupido. They irresponsibly and inanely slaughtered their religious enemies with comics and got slaughtered in return. They were not innocent. And all it seems that they were about was radical Leftist nothingness really. And extreme hatred.

Islam has contempt for Jews and Christians but have an even worse view of Atheists. So as the dumbo Leftists proceed unwittingly and UNAWARE of what was coming to them. And as a consequence, devoured by Islam. DUH!

I don't subscribe to conspicuous compassion and porno grieving especially not for fools.

>>>>>>>

That's right Joe,

Pascal said that the beginning of morality was to think well; generosity of spirit is not enough.

Sorry George, Merkel is speaking in appeasement tones which can't last. No use pretending.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1355961/Nicolas-Sarkozy-joins-David-Cameron-Angela-Merkel-view-multiculturalism-failed.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-germany-multiculturalism-failures

Again, its all politics with no conviction or integrity. Vapid contradictions and doublespeak.

They are living in fear and seceding and taking the rest of us with them. How dare they.

"... They were not innocent. And all it seems that they were about was radical Leftist nothingness really. And extreme hatred."

Unlike the toxic rants you splash all over this forum?

"Islam has contempt for Jews and Christians but have an even worse view of Atheists. So as the dumbo Leftists proceed unwittingly and UNAWARE of what was coming to them. And as a consequence, devoured by Islam. DUH!

I don't subscribe to conspicuous compassion and porno grieving especially not for fools."

And not even a skerrick of wit or satire in your repertoire....

Who said I was trying to be witty or satirical you ignorant troll.

As Constance rightly implies, invariably, both secular dictatorships (Nasser, Kassem, Assad, Gaddafi, Saddam, Boumedienne/Bouteflika, Bashir) and theocratic dictatorships (Iran, Saudi) have targeted the genuine Left right from the outset.

I've thought the bravest people in the Middle east must be the Communists and other committed Leftists, prepared to die for their activities (which they usually do). Couldn't be too many of them left these days, poor buggers.

Simply put, if we include the fast-vanishing Left, there seem to be four main contenders for power across the Middle east: obviously the Islamists, secular dictators, the very weak democratic forces, and the incredibly weak Leftist-democratic forces. Even the Yanks seem to be aware of the first three, and how to make any sort of headway, mainly against the Islamists, and secondarily against the secular dictatorships, in order to make room for any residual democrats and the Kurds.

Of course, it's not so baby-simple: the Saudis and the Iranians, not to mention the Turks, all have their oars in there, stirring away.

It all makes Israel seem a haven of sanity, decency and progress - and always ready to defend itself against random terrorist rockets or other terrorist acts.

Joe

Thanks Constance,

Attacking slaughtered cartoonists just so you can have a lefty rant is not good form.

I thought "righties" were in favour of liberty and freedom of expression - you appear to be intimating they deserved what they got.

I wasn't saying you were attempting to be witty or satirical - merely lamenting that your diatribes are devoid of such creative endeavour.

You also seem to think that you can plonk your posts up and down the forum, to the cheers of the usual suspects, but anyone who challenges your belligerent stream is an "ignorant troll".

Well, she does have you pegged, Poirot :)

How else would you describe your constant attempts to divert discussion from the actual topic, when it gets too uncomfortable for you, and when you can put on that 'I'm so hard-done-by, I'm always being picked on' act ?

What has been your actual contribution to this topic ? Do you have any views at all on the murder of journalists, I wonder, and on their rights to push the boundaries ? Anything constructive ?

If you were a journalist, you might understand.

Joe

Nice try, Loudmouth.

"What has been your actual contribution to this topic ? Do you have any views at all on the murder of journalists.."

Bit remiss there, if you're going to parachute into threads and criticise other people for diversion, then you'd be well advised to check out the top of thread before you do so. I've contributed plenty to this discussion thread "on topic" (see top of thread)

You really are a hypocrite.

What has this mealy-mouthed swipe at George (that you deployed at the end of your post to him) got to do with the subject?

"And rumours to the contrary, neither I or any of the blokes in my old football team know your mother. We were all just good friends."

Sorry if I surmise your operating procedure, but it seems to me you're the type who can spray insults like that around online as a snide parting gesture - but you'd shrink from insulting the mothers of the men you are debating in real life - because you'd probably promptly have your nose pushed in.

lOUDMOUTH: How else would you describe your constant attempts to divert discussion from the actual topic, when it gets too uncomfortable for you, and when you can put on that 'I'm so hard-done-by, I'm always being picked on' act ?

When have I ever diverted discussion or put on a hard done by act. Go on Show me. You can't find one can you! Go on.... Go on..... miffft, miffft, Bawaaahhh!

I thought I'd answer for you Poirot. Just in case you might have missed an opportunity for a, "I'm always being picked on' act?" ;-)

Run away and play with your blocks, Jayb.

You're the guy who spouts whatever you wish to invent - and when repeatedly asked to provide evidence of your fiction, runs off at high speed.

You still haven't provided the links I asked for.

Whoops!...too late....he's gone.

It seems to me that there is a question left unanswered by the 750-odd posts on this thread, yet that question seems to be seminal.

What are the implications of free speech?

poirot: Run away and play with your blocks, Jayb.
You still haven't provided the links I asked for.

It's nice in the Box, Air Conditioned, Library, PC, TV, Workshop, Big Reel to Reel & Blocks. You should be so lucky.

& I told you, every other discussion we have ever had on the bad guys (Moslems) & the good guys (the rest of us). All of 'em.

Jayb,

Like I said, if there are so many, it shouldn't be hard to produce some.

You should stop your mendacious accusations or stump up with the evidence.

(Of course, there is NO evidence - so you can't - which also explains why you haven't)

Craig,

In Australia, this might go some way to answering your question:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1997/24.html#Heading4

Joe

Loudmouth: The only time where free speech has been promoted is where the speaker is attacking an unpopular cause;[58] the times where there has been a resounding rejection of the idea of free speech have been where the speaker has promoted an unpopular cause.[59]

[58] More often than not the free speech cases have protected attacks on the industrial system or on politicians. The only exception to this could be ACTV, but there again Labor Party moves to promote fairness in the electoral process were not popular with any group which would be advantaged by unfairness. This is not to say that we support the legislation which was struck down, but rather that the attempted legislation was a little too radical, and was seen as an attack on established means of electioneering.

[59] Communists and animal liberationists have suffered in this regard.

Says it all, doesn't it. & the last sentence in 58 speaks for itself, doesn't it.

Hi Joe, thanks for the link. It's an interesting survey of some of the legal underpinnings of the limitations applying to the 'right' to speak freely, but the question of implications remains. The notion of 'freedom' implies no restriction, yet it is unquestionable that the Law imposes some restrictions, as your linked document makes clear.

It is those acts of speech and of course deed which go outside the bounds of the Law (exercise 'freedom') which are the most important, because they have the potential to effect change.

Mandela, Gandhi, the Suffragettes, Gerry Adams, Malcolm X, Hitler, Lenin, Wilberforce, Franklin et al, Galileo, going back and back to Jesus, Socrates, Spartacus, Julius Caesar; each and every one of these people was outside the law in their speech to some extent. Some were notably imprisoned or worse.

So what makes these people 'great' (whichever way you view the nature of that greatness in specific cases) and distinguishes their speech from more mundanely abusive or offensive rantings such as might be seen from anonymous trolls or resentful drunks - or in the formulaic rhetoric of politicians' displays and spin-doctors' cynical wittering?

Could a modern-day equivalent to one of those people arise within our great democracy and if they did, could they be effective in getting their message out? Would we, in our comfortable complacency, be any more willing to hear an uncomfortable message than the Whites of South Africa or the English landlords of Ireland or the Pharisees of ancient Judea?

Constance,

>>Sorry George, Merkel is speaking in appeasement tones which can't last. No use pretending. <<

You are right, but what else should she do, or more importantly, CAN she do?

The situation in Europe is more complicated than could be explained here, but still: In addition to the Muslim problem, Europe has its euro crisis and has become the not-very-willing participant in recent US-Russia animosities, both these factors causing centrifugal forces in the EU.

It is not Europe’s meddling in Middle East affairs that causes hundreds of thousands of refugees, mainly Muslims, coming to Europe in addition to those coming illegally on boats from Africa, and those who have been here already for a couple of generations. Not only Christians but also the non-religious majority in a post-Christian Europe cannot accept the drowning of desperate Africans in the Mediterranean or reject refugees from war-torn Syria or Afghanistan. Although all - including those who provide refuge in Catholic or Lutheran parishes - are well aware that these acts of charity contribute to Europe having to become more Islam-friendly, to put it mildly, in the future (after all it was not the Muslims who created in Europe, at least its Western parts, a religious vacuum that now Islam wants to fill in).

What is the alternative? I mean a politically workable one, not personally. Personally, the minimum requirement is to refrain from unnecessary provocation. I am neither an atheist as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists claim to be, nor a Jew, but as an expression of solidarity with the victims of the Paris massacre I would have somehow preferred the “Je suis Juif “ - identifying with the four Jewish victims who did not provoke anybody - to the “Je suis Charlie”. (It did not hurt evgen Benedict XVI to publicly resent the hurt he might have caused (although he did not formally apologize) to Muslim feelings with the sidetracking quote in his 2006 Regensburg lecture). This includes also refraining from emotional outbursts and provocations here. They do not contribute to the solution of the problem Muslims-atheists-Christians, even on a personal level

I step away for a short time and come back to find this;

"And rumours to the contrary, neither I or any of the blokes in my old football team know your mother. We were all just good friends."

I get that he was being deliberately offensive to make a point and I suppose the same can be said about the Charlie Hedbo staff. Well let us follow through with the exercise shall we. Just as in Australia and France there are proscribed standards of behaviour on OLO and recourse for those who feel those standards have been transgressed. Therefore I am recommending the slur that he directed at George be deleted.

Whether or not it is allowed to stand is up to our moderator. Whatever the decision I feel it will perhaps lead into another aspect of free speech, one that has only been lightly touched on in this thread.

Steelie: Therefore I am recommending the slur that he directed at George be deleted.

As it is only your particular opinion. I am against deleting Georges Post. Graham please note. My vote cancels out Steelies.

Jayb,

It's not George's post.

It's Loudmouth's.

Of course, he wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to to follow up his comments to men in real life with such an odious comment...but it's easy when you're online and out of physical reach.

Seems like a cowardly below the belt comment to me - from one man to another.

Don't know if it matches an OLO transgression though.

poirot: It's Loudmouth's. Of course, he wouldn't have the intestinal fortitude to to follow up his comments to men in real life with such an odious comment...but it's easy when you're online and out of physical reach.

Are you threatening violence poirot? Hmmmm... A deletion, maybe.

My apologies George.

As it is only your particular opinion. I am against deleting Loudmouths Post. Graham please note. My vote cancels out Steelies. Well Ditto for Loudmouth.

Admitted my mistake & corrected it.

Jayb,

Certainly not threatening anything.

But I'm wondering how many men in a real life situation could resist biffing a transgressor who, as a finishing flourish to a robust discussion, chooses to insinuate that his opponent's mother was a tart?

Dear Poirot,

Oh dear.

Loudmouth displayed his nasty speech impediment...
his foot.

poirot: Certainly not threatening anything.

Certainly sounded like it to me. Then you claim that it would be justified. Strange. Two messages in one. Which one do I believe. You being a moslem supporter an' all.

Dame Margot,

Flap-flap - anything but the topic. Look ! something else over there !

My recollection is that George brought up his mother, and I was simply denying having any familiarity with her. I strongly deny that she is, or ever has been, a tart, as you suggest. Still, I wish her well and regret that she has been brought into this important discussion, in order to divert it.

So back to topic :)

Foxy,

I thoroughly endorse your initial opinion:

"From news reports coming out of Paris,
there are however some people who feel that the editor
of the satirical magazine should not have poured
oil onto the fire by deliberately knowing that his
actions would provoke an extremist reaction. I would
like to see what others here think - did the Editor
go too far. I don't think so, but then that's only
my opinion."

So what's your opinion these days ? Attitudes evolve, I know, they mature, become enriched and, yes, sometimes are modified. Have you modified yours ?

Joe

Back to topic

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Much has been written and said on this topic.
However the key question raised to all of
this - as Michael
Gordon points out in The Age, Saturday January
17th 2015 is "...how do you best protect
freedom of speech, a critically important feature
of our society, while recognising the need to
protect people from vilification and potentially
violent provocation..."

I used to think that freedom of speech was more
important than anything else - however logic
now dictates that the answer is not as simple as
that. If we know that there are groups in
our society who feel that they are not able to defend
themselves or express themselves, to taunt them and to
push them to their limits surely is not very wise.

Of course I still support free-speech. However,
clearly, our response requires a balancing act.
I agree with Michael Gordon
that Australia has managed "to get the
balancing act right, more or less, most of the time".
This is because so far we do have laws in place
that act as safety valves
to protect our society from the consequences of hate
speech. Our
PM has stated - "We have very robust free speech in
this country," however, Michael Gordon points
out - "...but the challenge of responding to the
threat of terrorist acts by those who invoke the
name of Islam remains with all its dimensions."

Loudmouth,

"My recollection is that George brought up his mother, and I was simply denying having any familiarity with her. I strongly deny that she is, or ever has been, a tart, as you suggest. Still, I wish her well and regret that she has been brought into this important discussion, in order to divert it.

So back to topic :)"

Love it! - every time Joe is caught out floundering amongst the dregs of his own rhetoric, he scurries for his beloved BTT life jacket.

But we are on topic - Freedom of Speech.

You gave a wonderful example of such. Your craven and insulting parting remark to George was a superb example of using language to impugn someone's honour. You didn't breach any specific rules, even though your provocative indulgence was off topic, uncalled for and contrived as schoolboy taunt. - which, by the way, any man of integrity would consider beyond the pale.

So, to sum up, there's nothing to stop you highlighting, through your freedom of expression, just the kind of fellow you are.

We now have a good idea.

.

Bowdlerising Charlie Hebdo …

.

Thomas Bowdler explained in « The Family Shakespeare » :

« Those expressions are omitted which cannot with propriety be read aloud in the family. »
.

« The Family Shakespeare » is an expurgated edition of William Shakespeare's work intended to be more appropriate for 19th century women and children than the original.

Some examples of alterations made by Bowdler's edition :

• In Hamlet, the death of Ophelia was referred to as an accidental drowning, omitting the suggestions that she may have intended suicide.
• In Macbeth, Lady Macbeth's famous cry "Out, damned spot!" was changed to "Out, crimson spot!"
• "God!" as an exclamation is replaced with "Heavens!"
• In Henry IV, Part 2, the prostitute Doll Tearsheet is omitted entirely; the slightly more reputable Mistress Quickly is retained.

Would it be more judicious to consider that those who venerate a god or gods represent a sub-culture, similar to 19th century women and children, and publish an expurgated edition of Charlie Hebdo which they would find acceptable ?

If so, it would not seem unreasonable to expect such propriety to be reciprocated :

http://m.theepochtimes.com/n3/51162-propriety-suggests-reciprocity/

Unfortunately, it is evident that no reciprocity is possible between the jihadists and Charlie Hebdo. Who could imagine that the jihadists would reciprocate by recognizing Charlie Hebdo’s right to continue publishing its original version ?

It seems we are left with little alternative but to decide whose side we are on.

.

Dear Banjo Paterson,

The answer is not as simple as many who have entered this
debate would have us believe.

I've stated in my earlier post - the
response requires a balancing act. We need the co-operation of
well-informed and resilient local Muslim communities and
this necessarily will involve a discussion of free speech and
the need for safety valves.

Foxy,

This might help you,

Excerpt from Islam, Postmodernism, and Political Correctness
By Danusha V. Goska

<Now, when talking heads state simple truths, "Most Muslims are not jihadis. Most Muslims are peaceful. Most Muslims are just like you and I and most Muslims should not be the targets of our rage," many otherwise good people, rendered cynical, dismiss these words.

Free speech is the best friend Muslims have. In the current environment, unspoken suspicions rankle and conspiracy theories proliferate. We must protect innocent Muslims from rancor, every bit as much as we must protect innocent people of all faiths. The best way to protect the vast majority of Muslims who are innocent and who just want to live their lives in peace is to tell the truth about Islam, and to publicly, verbally, fearlessly, and communally hash out solutions to the challenges Islam presents.>
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/islam_postmodernism_and_poltiical_correctness.html

Foxy: the response requires a balancing act. We need the co-operation of well-informed and resilient local Muslim communities and
this necessarily will involve a discussion of free speech and the need for safety valves.

A Islamic balancing act requires that, moslems make a demand & we back down to appease them. Then they make another demand & we back down again to appease them to, eventually Australia is a moslem country & YOU have lost all of your feminine rights, even to drive or leave your house without a male relative.

& don't forget that is mandatory to lie to a Kaffa to further the cause of Islam.

Oh, they won't do that, I hear you say. Yair right.

Dear otb,

Thank You for the link.

I've also made a note of her book.
I shall try to get hold of a copy.

Dear Jayb,

I've been very fortunate in my life.

The people that I've encountered thus far
were not always easy to understand at times
but I can honestly say I did try to understand
and learn from them.

Hopefully that shall continue.

Hi Poriot,

Sorry, sooky-babe, what's your point ?

Back to topic: it's surely important for journalists to not only have the right to push the boundaries but for the rest of the population to support them in their important function.

Yes, that includes the right, even the duty, to be obnoxious in their opinions, to provoke, and even to enrage. Otherwise why not just cover weddings, dog shows and eistedfodds ? [Not that there's anything wrong with eistedfodds].

I certainly know some obnoxious people who claim to be journalists. Obnoxious is easy. But I fear that even some journalists don't have the wits to realise the importance for our society of exercising the freedoms of expression, and supporting those who do that. Perhaps there are journalists on OLO who take their historic and sacred duties seriously, who are prepared to go out on a limb and, even, support their assassinated colleagues in Paris by proudly saying "Je suis Charlie".

Or maybe not.

Joe

.

More about Confucius and reciprocity ...

.

« The doctrine of reciprocal response is considered a universal law of nature observed by birds, beasts ans indects … Confucius himself expressed the idea of mutuality in social relationships in the following dialoque recorded in the “Analects”: … “Tzu-kung asked, saying, ‘Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all of one’s life?’ The Master said: ‘Is not reciprocity (shu) such a word? What you do not want done to yourself do not do to others.’” In another passage in the “Analects” it is recorded that someone asked Confucius: “What do you say concerning the principle that injury should be recompensed with kindness?” The Master said: “With what then will you recompense kindness? Recompense injury with justice and recompense kindness with kindness.”

What the Sage calls justice is that if a man is good, he is not to be rejected because he is an enemy, and if the man is bad, he is not to be protected because he is a friend. Judgements and decisions should in every case correspond to the facts. To recompense injury in this manner certainly will not lead to an endless process of mutual retaliation.” »

[ cited from: “Judaism and the Gentile Faiths: Comparative Studies in Religion”, by Joseph P. Schultz – Associated University Presses Inc., Toronto, Canada – p. 48 ]

.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

The editors of newspapers in the UK decided
not to re-print the cartoons from Charlie Hebdo
and here's the reasons why:

"Editors of newspapers have always taken into
account the effects of what they publish.
In essence they have to ask themselves if they
should gratuitously insult a religion and its
adherents, because a small group of fanatics
had misused its teachings in order to justify
murder."

"Indeed, would publication of the offending
cartoons serve only to provoke others
to take reactionary action, or at the very least
encourage yet more alienation in British Society."

"Freedom is and should always be tempered by
responsibility. Drawing the line between the two
is difficult at the best of times."

What editors need to ask themselves is -

"Is it right for me to publish this material?"

"Editorial decisions have always been guided, not just
by legal restrictions but by what is fair and tolerable
within British Society..."

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jan/11/charlie-hebdo-cartoons-uk-press-publish

Hi Foxy,

Of course, you're right, as usual, but only up to a point, literally: on the spectrum between: observe - remark - disagree with - criticise - confront - offend - insult - humiliate - intimidate - incite violence - carry out violence - murder etc.,

perhaps you may disagree, but I suggest that that point should be: between 'insult' and 'humiliate' - although it can be very difficult to differentiate between the two, to 'insult' should be permitted, but to 'humiliate' should not be permitted.

But another factor comes in, of course: intentionality. I'm suggesting that anybody should be permitted to intentionally 'insult' but not to intentionally 'humiliate'. How to prove that one has 'unintentionally' humiliated somebody with their comments rather than intentionally, would probably have to be judged from the context. so maybe it's a more moral position to be careful not to humiliate, intentionally or otherwise.

Hi Poirot,

I owe you at least one apology: I've just discovered this from you on another thread, from last week:

"In the end "Charlie" doesn't just represent the people killed at the magazine - it represents the principle of democratic freedoms that we take for granted in the West.

"Other religions, politicians and cultural icons were lampooned as well by the cartoonists. To imagine that any of them would use that provocation as a reason for a massacre is of course beyond the pale."

I fully agree; but that mucks up my neat little spectrum: where does 'lampoon' come in ? Hopefully as insult rather than humiliation, between intentional insult and intentional humiliation. 'Unintentional humiliation' - I'm just not comfortable with that either, but by definition, how does one prove 'unintention' ?

Thank you, Poirot.

Joe

Foxy,

Maybe the your (high) moralising fish wrapper has feet of clay,

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-destroyed-christian-protesters

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/apr/18/andres-serrano-piss-christ-shock

The editorial policy of The Guardian is a bit obvious to most.

Dear otb,

Thank You for the two links that you've
cited from The Guardian and its reporting
of what happened in France and the French
reaction to the work. Reporting on the
incident is quite fair.

Why do you refer to The Guardian as a
"fish wrapper," and also as "my" high
moralising newspaper?

Comments like those have a detrimental effect
and discourage inter-action.

Not a good move on your part if you want your
posts to be read and responded to.

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

Thank You for your reply.

We may not always agree - however you always make me
look at things from a different perspective.

Take care.

You do me proud, Foxy :)

Oi, you two!

Does that mean I'm not yer favourite anymore, Loudmouth?

I don't know how I'm going to get through the day now.

Dear Poirot,

I'm sure you're a favourite.

I should explain that -

Joe and I go back quite a way.

I still remember the time after he lost his wife (she died),
the feelings he expressed in a discussion about
euthanasia. It was very poignant and moved me
deeply.

Foxy,

I'm sure I'm not a favourite : )

However, I appreciate your other points.

Hi George,

You think Pope Benedict should have apologised? I’m rather confused as to whether you think Islam is a problem or not. So you don’t think people should not be anxious (an emotion) about Islam at all? I know quite a while back you think they should be Westernised if living in the West? Which will not happen if they totally believe in their ideology. Do you know anything about Islam?

You seem to take the attitude of nonchalance or even a lemming and are afraid of hurting Muslim’s feelings that seem unwarranted. Like we are better off just ignoring all the violence. It doesn't sound like you have many insights on Islam.

Constance: I know quite a while back you think they should be Westernised if living in the West? Which will not happen if they totally believe in their ideology.

The very reason moslems should not be allowed into Western Countries.

Dear Jayb,

So you want to ban all Muslims from Western countries?

Why?

By passing laws that prevent people from living
with others of different faiths, people will never
learn how to live in diversity based on tolerance.

I did a brief search on the web under the subject -
"Islam in Australia," and came up with some interesting
information in Wikipedia. It's worth a read of the
history of Muslims in this country.

It also stated that "The Muslim community is fragmented
racially, ethnically, culturally and linguistically.
Members of the Australian Muslim Community thus also
espouse parallel non-religions ethnic identities with
related non-Muslim counterparts - either within
Australia or abroad."

Foxy: By passing laws that prevent people from living with others of different faiths, people will never learn how to live in diversity based on tolerance.

I agree with that, however that only goes for Jews, Hindus, Buddhists & other Christian Denominations. moslems don't have any tolerance for any Religion other than for Islam & even then they haven't had any tolerance for variations of Islam in 1400 years.

moslems WILL never learn how to live in diversity based on tolerance.

Therefore it is best that this threat to Western Culture is removed & the people who are willing to live with diversity can live together in Peace & Harmony.

The irony is getting thicker by the second.

If only we could mine it...

Hi Constance,

>> You think Pope Benedict should have apologised?<<

Certainly not. I think there is an im portant but subtle difference - especially if coming from a public figure - between apologising for what I have said or done, and regretting having hurt somebody’s feelings. In the first case I agree that I have done something that I now see was wrong, in the second case I do not see it but when you say that you were hurt, then I am sorry.

Islam certainly is a problem for the post-Christian West, something like a medieval mentality (with 21st century technology) clashing with our globalising 21st century world. There is some agreement on the diagnosis, but no agreement on a plausible cure, even whether such a cure exists at all; and when not then what?.

I don’t remember having said Muslims should be Westernised (meaning by non-Muslims). Only recently, I wrote on another thread:

“We should remember that Enlightenment was not imported to the Christian West from the outside (say from China) but it grew on its own soil. Therefore I think non-Muslims should encourage a similar development WITHIN Islam (there is even talk about Euroislam); ridiculing or abusing Koran and Muhammad just in order to make use of somebody’s freedom of speech, is counterproductive.”

You are right that I understand Christianity and the culture it begat much better than Islam and the culture (and ideology, not the same thing) built on it. However, the problem is not with Christians and post-Christians flooding the Muslim world (which they should learn to know and adjust to) with immigrants and refugees, but the other way around. I am not happy with the likely outlook of Islam becoming the leading religion in Western Europe (of course, outnumbering only practising Christians not the vast majority of areligious) without having to resort to violence, in a few decades. (In Cologne where I live, 10% are of Turkish descent, all self-confessed Muslims, at least in the ethnic meaning of the word.) What do you suggest should be done?

Jayb: moslems WILL never learn how to live in diversity based on tolerance.

How tolerant are you? In an Islamicized Western World, would you be this tolerant?

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/woman-beheaded-in-broad-daylight-in-moderate-muslim-nation-while-police-watch/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breaking+News+Video%3A+Iranian+General+Among+Dead+in+IAF+Golan+Strike&utm_campaign=20150119_m124046183_1%2F19+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Iranian+General+Among+Dead+in+IAF+Golan+Strike&utm_term=beheading-saudiarabia_png_3F1421676579

HI George,

Expulsions.

Expulsions were undertaken in the past by the Catholic Church due to minorities undermining national security and Christian culture. There were warranted reasons. I am sure of this.

George, you must see Islam not as a religion – it is not. Mohammad was the devil. Please see my posts on the “It’s Islam, not Islamism”, especially the most recent. I’ve done some formal study and my own research and my own observations of Muslims living in Sydney. I also know people who have lived in the Middle East – plenty of personal stories and anecdotes. I’ve been highly conscious due to my workplace where it’s all happening and has been an real eye opener.

We must get serious. Islam is a 100% way of life which directs Muslims in all sorts of ways, even toiletry, And as a female, I do not want my their misogynistic ways imposed upon the future of my female relatives nor anyone else's. Political correctness and fawning all over them has been highly detrimental to the Western way of life.

Leftist propaganda has been feeding Islam and our true history has been grossly distorted. Our universities have been plagued by Marxists supporting minorities and not the normal mainstream people. The aim is to create mayhem and division. Its pretty obvious, really. Radical Secularism has clashed with Islam taking more and more advantage of the West at its most weakest. Sweden and France in particular, as they are both embedded in Socialism. Sweden now has the 2nd highest rape record in the world due to Muslim immigrants.

Mohammad was a false prophet and madman. Think ideology more than religion. Religion is only the beard. There is nothing benign or benevolent in Islam. It has harsh origins from the desert. They don't like nature, animals etc.

And the local expert on false prophecy and being mad has spoken...

Craig Mimms: And the local expert on false prophecy and being mad has spoken...

In this caser she is dead on.

...and if you don't take Jayb's narrative on board, he'll call you an Arab - and then regale you with one on his long embroidered tales of an innocent abroad.

So who's this "devil" Constance refers to as if it actually exists?

Dear Poirot,

It's rather strange all this talk about "the
devil." The principal foreign enemy of the
Islamic fundamentalists is the "Great Satan,"
the United States.

It appears that fundamentalists of any religion
find it politically helpful to have an alien enemy.
The solidarity of any community is enhanced if it
perceives a common outside threat.

Just returning to the thread subject, this interview featuring Douglas Murray, Associate director of the Henry Jackson Society in London, effectively covered the main issues raised in the OP,

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/finally-al-jazeera-gets-the-live-on-air-beating-it-deserves/

- It was in a site linked to by Jayb.

Hi Constance,

I think I can empathise with your feelings: as a Catholic I am well aware of similarly anti-Catholic (anti-Christian, or generally anti-religion) outburst here. I have always (at least I hope so) tried not to react on the same level but to understand what caused them, what personal experiences the person had to go through to become so high on emotions that go beyond mere rational criticism. So also now, believe me, I can imagine many situations involving Muslims and Islam, that one would not like to have in our world. On the other hand, there are also reciprocal experiences: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/excerpts-from-guantanamo-diary-of-mohamedou-ould-slahi-a-1013724.html ?

However, my question, what can be done to prevent Islam and sharia from being too influential in our world, still remains.

You mention “expulsions” and refer to medieval times when the Catholic Church was as dominant as is Islam in Muslim countries today. The times of Christendom are gone, whether we like it or not. We do not have the problem of us versus them (Muslims) but - at least in Europe, but perhaps also in Australia - it is a three-pronged problem of Christians vs. atheists (rightist or leftist, demanding or not a “right” to offend others) vs Muslims. In a nutshell: as a Christian I am closer to Muslims in WHAT I believe, but closer to atheists as to HOW I go about it.
(ctd)

(ctd)

Let me add also my own personal experience. TV talk show are a German national sport (much more popular than what I remember from Australia 15 years ago), and the Muslim question is often discussed. Also, a pensioner like me has the time to follow as many of them as possible.

The participants include Muslims (mostly of Turkish descent) male or female (with or without the hijab). Most of them (not all, there are also imams who really stick out as a sore non-European thumb) are second or third generation Germans often with university degrees speaking accent-free German. Especially the ladies impress me with the way they can defend their religion and its place in modern (meaning post-Christian) Germany. I remember one of them: After being criticised for their religion’s treatment of women said something like, “you are right, but instead of supporting us to improve the situation you want to take away the only thing we have left to give us strength and hope. Of course, nobody dared to raise the question of converting to Christianity where she could find the same solace.

Naturally, there are also streets in Cologne where it mis difficult to get along with German only (years ago I got lost in Bankstown in Sydney and it took me a while to find an Asian who spoke English), and these educated-in-Germany Muslims probably do not live here (there are about three Turkish families living in the six story house I live in).

Of course, there are problems with Muslims in Germany (the vast majority of whom have a Turkish background) but these are nothing compared to what the French have with their “banlieue” Muslims. This, by the way, is also the reason why Jews seem to feel safer in Germany than in France and lately also in Britain.

Allegedly, there are villages in Bavaria, where both Catholics and Muslims coexist in peace, living in separate areas, respecting each others’ religion, no provocations. I cannot verify whether this is actually so, or just some wishful thinking.

George,

In your first paragraph, you are ambiguous and rather obfuscating. Are you talking about the over emotional reaction of Secularists or Muslims? Or me? Methinks, me. Nothing to be anxious (emotional) about, right? Well, I’m a female and your not, so Islam will affect me more than you.

The Guantanamo story is not your personal experience with Islam it is only the media’s. I don’t why you have used it. You have been had, in sympathizing with a terrorist suspect. You want to try and understand his personal experience? His experience is having been brainwashed and has a completely different mentality to the Judeo-Christian Westerners, and all other Non Muslims.

Der Spiegel, like all of the mainstream media will continue to use one off “I’ve been hard done by” stories persisting in their subterfuge over the general public. The media is so out of touch with normal people, it’s not funny. Unfortunately, there will always be a few unjust casualties in missions to eradicate terrorists. But then there is always collateral damage in war. But we’ll probably never know with this guy anyway. Are you aware of Taquiyya (Muslim lying code for infidels)? There must be valid reasons for even Obama to have retained the Guantanamo facility, don’t you think? Before he was elected he did say he was going to close it.

How about the hundreds of honour killings occurring in the UK? Why are these atrocities never in mainstream media. Do you have any sympathy for these Muslimas? The child sex slavery racket run by Muslim men occurring in Northern England were dodged for years because of the chronic PC syndrome.

“After weeks of torture, Slahi decided to give his torturers what they wanted: He began talking, implicating people he didn't know and delivering one false statement after the other. He was rewarded for it as well. Even today, Slahi is a privileged prisoner at Guantanamo, with a television and computer, and he's even allowed to grow his own herb garden.

Cont....

Oh, goody, more fear porn.

I hope everyone remembered to get popcorn on the way in?

...Cont

.. During the summer of 2005, he completed a 460-page Guantanamo Diary that he had written by hand. From the beginning, his hope was to someday publish it. He waited a decade. But on Tuesday, his writings are being published in book form around the world for the first time.” He didn’t die, did he – and look what he’s getting now.” Sounds like a happy chappy.

Yes, it’s tough, George, but when it is such a serious issue, and you’re trying to break a terrorist, the things they have to do. Why do the perpetraters receive more respect than the actual victims? While dead bodies are barely rested, the media jumps in showing more concern for Islamphobia than the victims.

“as a Christian I am closer to Muslims in WHAT I believe”. Are you sure about that? Do you know anything about Islam? It’s like comparing Christians to extreme fascists. Again, it is not a religion. Yeh, some people BELIEVE and worship the devil. Tell me what do you think of Mohammad? Do you think he was a nice bloke? One minute you imply you have concerns for Islam, then you turn it all upside down. You seem confused.

I am very aware it is a clash between Islam and Secularism. I’ve been saying this for about the last three months. Zat is the problem. Bernard Lewis and an Egyptian Jesuit (both Scholars on Islam) confirmed my pre-existing opinion on what’s been feeding Islam. Hedonism, bad telly, Western decadence etc.

The TV shows are also not a good example of your personal experience. It is not first hand so it is not personal. It is only mainstream media again, and that’s your only source of knowledge of Islam? That’s pathetic and shows you can't be serious. Now I see how you relate to Foxy. They don’t let us help them George, and they cannot help themselves either as they have no desire to integrate. A Muslima finding the same solace in Christianity – you’re kidding, right? Again, mysoginism is entrenched in Islam. “

Cont....

...Cont

“converting to Christianity where she could find the same solace” – of course not because death is the penalty for Converts, or Reverts what they call them because everyone in the world is born Muslim anyway . Crazy stuff – they do not recognise any other beliefs outside the ideology of Islam. As Mohammed (the psychopath) is the last prophet.

Muslims hold contempt for Jews and Christians and their attitude is even worse for Atheists – and there you have Charlie Hebdo as a result. Yes, interesting they have to live separately in Bavaria. Apartheid anyone? And yes, it can be very hard finding an English speaker at times in Sydney.

So who is more important, ONE terrorist suspect or hundreds of honour killing victims, sex slavery victims, thousands of terrorist victims? Do females count?

In the DS story, “Humiliation, sexual harassment”. We normal people, are always being humiliated every day by PC impinging on our freedom of speech and thoughts. Muslim men are always sexually harassing females, especially in Socialist Sweden.

And you have the nerve to imply that I am offensive.

And stop trying to telling me indirectly that I am too emotional. This is the most important issue since WWII, actually it’s much worse. Do you really expect the West to be numb on accepting foreign violence into their societies. I’d rather be passionate and anxious than insipid or indifferent any day.

Why have the intelligentsia become so anti-intellectual when it comes to Islam. But then again, that’s just what society has become - dumbing down everything and turned us all into sychophants.

I resent your comments when you have told me I haven’t contributed anything when you haven’t even bothered to try and understand Islam. And you think you’re the rational one here.

Expulsions? But we are living in a Dark Age anyway - doesn’t matter what century we’re in. Since Islam has perpetrated host counties throughout the world, throughout the centuries aiming for its goal of Dar Es Salaam bit by bit.

Cont......

Sheesh, that wasn't worth the effort. Hysteria ain't what it used to was.

...Cont

And yes, Islam has intruded on my life including on the day at the Lindt Café horror where I had planned to have lunch near there that very day. But was forced to change my plans. Circular Quay was in lock down the other day and now we have a banned terrorist organisation, Hizb ut-Tahrir organising a rally in Lakemba not far from where I've been living.

I’m afraid the polite dinner party conversation shown in mainstream media (and yourself going out of your way in not offending anyone) of avoiding unpleasant facts can’t last. But you’ve offended me anyway previously.

Theodore Dalrymple is a doctor and psychiatrist who has worked in prisons in Birmingham UK – he has first hand insights of Muslims.
See 63,48
http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Hammurubai/theodore_dalrymple_essays_and_articles__2013/
http://forum.theodoredalrymple.org/viewtopic.php?p=10175
http://takimag.com/article/triumph_of_the_mediocre_theodore_dalrymple/print#axzz3PdWT2FVN
http://www.newenglishreview.org/Nicolai_Sennels/Muslims_and_Westerners%3A__The_Psychological_Differences/
“What I say here might seem to be more political than psychological. However, it is my extensive experience in giving therapy to Muslims that has led me to make this statement: We should not permit the destruction of our cities by lawless parallel societies, with groups of roaming criminal Muslims overloading of our welfare system and the growing justified fear that non-Muslims have of violence. The consequences should be so strict that it would be preferable for any anti-social Muslim to go back to a Muslim country, where they can understand, and can be understood by their own culture.”

“Overwhelmingly, 22 countries out of 24, in the survey expected that the “interaction between the Muslim and Western World is getting worse."

Just sit back, put your feet up and watch the world go by watching those ridiculous and obfuscating TV talk shows.

You have a propensity for falling for the saccharine, George. You have been fooled.

Hi Constance,

Thanks you for the long list of personal experiences and opinions. I regret I was unable to communicate to you my opinions and am sorry if thereby I offended or hurt you. I am not going to reciprocate ad hominem by insinuating that you don’t know or should know this or that.

Although I agree with much of what you wrote about the problem of Islam and Muslims, I think it is better if we leave it at that, since neither of us can suggest a workable or realistic solution.

Poirot, Pericles & George. How was the Rally? Did you have a good time? I see the Good Guys were moveded on, pity. I would have loved to have been there with my, "No Caliphate, Ifideliosious" Placard.

But I have George, Inquests (inquisitions) and EXPULSIONS - there is no other way.

Or you could just go somewhere else. Exercise that freedom you're so keen to trample all over.

Dear George and Craig,

"Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition?"